A/HRC/16/53/Add.1 majority as well as any church or religious groups”; article 17 (2) which stipulates that “the media content may not offend or discriminate against – whether expressly or by implication – persons, nations, communities, national, ethnic, linguistic and other minorities or any majority as well as any church or religious groups”; and article 20 (5), which stipulates that “[n]o media content with a commercial announcement that may offend religious or ideological convictions may be published”. 135. With regard to article 17 of the Press and Media Act, the Special Rapporteurs recognized the importance of prohibiting any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence and of protecting individuals from all forms of discrimination. However, the Special Rapporteurs are concerned that the wording of article 17 of the Press and Media Act is overly broad, since it prohibits content that would merely “offend”, and even “by implication” – without necessarily inciting discrimination or hatred – “persons, nations, communities, national, ethnic, linguistic and other minorities or any majority” as well as “any church or religious groups”. Similarly, the Special Rapporteurs are concerned at the formulation in article 11 of the Press and Media Act (“the public service media operates in order to […] foster national, family, ethnic and religious communities […]”) and its article 20 (5) concerning the nonpublication of “media content with a commercial announcement that may offend religious or ideological convictions”. As the Special Rapporteurs have stated on many occasions, abstract or subjective notions or concepts, such as the State, national symbols, national identity, cultures, schools of thought, religions, ideologies or political doctrines should not be protected as such. Otherwise, the rigorous protection of religions as such may create an atmosphere of intolerance and can give rise to fear and may even provoke the chances of a backlash (see A/HRC/2/3, para. 42). The Special Rapporteurs also reiterated that international human rights law protects individuals and groups of people, but not abstract notions or institutions that are subject to scrutiny, comment, criticism or ridicule (see A/HRC/14/23, para. 84 and A/HRC/2/3, paras. 27, 36 and 38). 136. Compliance with these provisions is overseen by a National Media and Infocommunications Authority (hereinafter the “Authority”), consisting of three entities as set out in article 109 of the Media Services and Mass Media Act: the President of the Authority, who is appointed by the Prime Minister of Hungary for a period of nine years; a Media Council of the Authority (hereinafter the “Media Council”), whose members are appointed by two thirds of the members of the Parliament for a period of nine years; and a Bureau of the Authority (hereinafter the “Bureau”), headed by a Director-General who is appointed by the President of the Authority. The Media Council in particular is mandated to prohibit unlawful conduct (article 186, Media Services and Mass Media Act), and “apply legal consequences” for breaches of the Press and Media Act (article 3 (4), Press and Media Act). Such “legal consequences” include suspension of a media service provider for up to one week in cases of repeated and grave infringements (article 187(3), Media Services and Mass Media Act), as well as imposition of fines of up to HUF 50,000,000 for a media service provider, HUF 25,000,000 for a newspaper with nationwide distribution, HUF 10,000,000 for a weekly periodical with nationwide distribution, HUF 5,000,000 for other newspapers or periodicals, HUF 25,000,000 for an online media product, HUF 5,000,000 for a broadcaster, and HUF 3,000,000 for an intermediary service provider (article 187 (3), Media Services and Mass Media Act). 137. As mentioned previously, any limitations to the right to freedom of expression should be applied by a body that is independent of any political, commercial, or other unwarranted influences. The Special Rapporteurs are concerned that the appointment process for the members of the Authority, which includes the President, Media Council and the Bureau, does not guarantee the independence of the Authority, given that the President is appointed by the Prime Minister, who is also empowered to appoint the Director-General of the Bureau, and the members of the Media Council are appointed by two thirds of the 29