A/HRC/38/53 Nazi rally in one country blurred out anti-racist protestors to help present a powerful image of a particular branch of neo-Nazis.49 32. Twitter has been utilized as a primary social media platform to exercise attacks on journalists. Journalists rely on Twitter to share information and publish their work. During the recent United States presidential campaign, anti-Semitic language was used in 2.6 million tweets generating more than 10 billion impressions. 50 A significant number of the anti-Semitic tweeters identified as supporters of the nationalist populist candidate who eventually won that election.51 These tweets were directed primarily at Jewish journalists as well as non-Jewish journalists who criticized that candidate.52 33. As social media platforms attempt to combat neo-Nazi and other ideologies of hate, a challenge they face is the variation in national standards prohibiting hate speech. Countries that have legal frameworks that protect speech that is prohibited elsewhere ultimately serve as safe havens for neo-Nazi speech.53 Consequently, many hate groups host their sites on Internet service providers in the United States. 54 34. Although social media companies are slowly working towards a better control of content posted on their platforms, 55 as recommended by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in its general recommendation No. 35 (2013) on combating racist hate speech, there is still much work to be done effectively to address racial hatred and intolerance online.56 V. Conclusion and recommendations 35. There are deep structural causes behind the rise of extreme and unashamed ideologies of racial superiority, including neo-Nazism. These require reform at a fundamental level, including counteracting the economic inequality that can catalyse intolerance and discrimination. At the same time, there are discrete measures that States can take to combat some of the trends identified in this report, especially the role of technology in aiding neo-Nazism, and the effects of neo-Nazism on children and youth, and their involvement in affiliated groups. As a matter of priority, more research is required to develop a better understanding of these two issues. As a result, the Special Rapporteur makes the following recommendations to member States: (a) The Special Rapporteur reiterates the recommendations contained in the reports of her predecessors to the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly, as they remain valid and current. She also urges States to take immediate measures to combat direct and indirect manifestations of neo-Nazism, racism and related intolerance, including implementing legal sanctions; 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 Ibid. Anti-Defamation League, “Anti-Semitic targeting of journalists during the 2016 presidential campaign” (New York, 19 October 2016). Available at https://www.adl.org/sites/default/files/documents/assets/pdf/press-center/CR_4862_Journalism-TaskForce_v2.pdf. Ibid. Ibid. For example, the legal frameworks of one North American country have been favourable to neo-Nazi and other hate groups propagating hate speech. Peter J. Breckheimer, “A haven for hate: the foreign and domestic implications of protecting internet hate speech under the First Amendment”, Southern California Law Review, vol. 75 (2002), pp. 1493–1528, at p. 1506. Ira Steven Nathenson, “Superintermediaries, code, human rights”, Intercultural Human Rights Law Review, vol. 8, No. 19 (2013), pp. 96–97. Ibid. Julia Fioretti, “Social media companies accelerate removals of online hate speech: EU”, Reuters. Available at https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-hatespeech/social-media-companies-accelerateremovals-of-online-hate-speech-eu-idUSKBN1F806X. See A/HRC/26/49, para. 17. 11