A/HRC/26/49 determining which content should be filtered. Moreover, the body’s decisions are not subject to judicial review, because it was not created by legislation, but has its own internal appeal procedure. 47. An alternative way of addressing racism and hate speech on the Internet and social media is to apply no kind of censorship or regulation, based on the ideal of freedom of speech and expression. Users are free to express their ideas and post comments or content that can be offensive, racist, xenophobic or hateful in any kind of meaning, and other users react to such racist or hateful speech or content by counter-speech. Although such an approach limits the interference of the State or of Internet or social media providers, it can allow anyone to spread hateful or racist language, ideas or contents that can offend, ridicule or marginalize a specific individual, group or population. Such an unlimited right to freedom of speech and expression can also be destructive to societ,y because it may increase tensions between certain groups and cause unrest. 48. The United States of America provides an example of freedom of speech that seeks to limit prohibitions, based on the First Amendment to the Constitution. In the case of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that: There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or “fighting” words – those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of peace… It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. 49. Since the case, the Supreme Court has also ruled that persons are free to choose the words that best express their feelings, and that strong or offensive language may better convey the person’s feelings. It has since then also struck down States’ laws that were considered too broad in prohibiting speech, on the grounds that, if the statute suffers from overreach, the effect is to chill free speech. A restriction may, however, be placed on freedom of speech when the insulting or hate speech is likely to incite to or promote violence, and can thus be prohibited. Nevertheless, this violence must be of an immediate threat. The Supreme Court has not directly specified which degree of offensiveness of the language used may constitute such an immediate threat. 50. Nevertheless, the Special Rapporteur recalls article 19, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and article 4 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which stipulate that the right to freedom of opinion and expression may be restricted legitimately under international human rights law essentially to safeguard the rights of others, and that that States are to declare an offence punishable by law all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred and incitement to racial discrimination, and prohibit activities that promote and incite racial discrimination. Content that may be restricted includes child pornography (to protect the rights of children), hate speech (to protect the rights of affected communities), defamation (to protect the rights and reputation of others against unwarranted attacks), direct and public incitement to commit genocide (to protect the rights of others), and advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence (to protect the rights of others, such as the right to life).6 6 See A/HRC/17/27. 13