A/HRC/49/46/Add.1 51. Many minority and human rights organizations expressed the view that social media platform owners were not sufficiently proactive in responding to this dangerous and growing tendency, and that more direct intervention was needed in order to impose, if necessary, further responsibilities and liabilities for the real harm and even violence and abuse caused by hate speech. 52. To ensure the protection of freedom of expression and to tackle the damaging effects of hate speech and hate crimes propagated on or facilitated through social media platforms, the Government must move in the same direction as other democracies, such as Austria, Germany and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as well as initiatives of the European Union, to enact legislation against hate crimes and to counter hate speech on social networks, including by simplifying the process for the deletion of hate speech and crime postings on social media, making the process more transparent and shifting the responsibility for the harm caused to the social network provider. VIII. Human rights of religious minorities 53. While religious freedom is guaranteed by States and under federal law and federal legislation, such as the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, offer protection in some areas for religious or belief minorities, domestic legislation does not always effectively protect against discrimination on the basis of religion or belief as prohibited under international human rights law. While Title VII and the Fair Housing Act prohibit discrimination based on religion in employment and housing, respectively, no federal legislation directly and generally prohibits discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief, nor for that matter on the grounds of language, two of the most important aspects of human identity which give rise to discriminatory practices and policies that have a negative impact on minorities. 54. Furthermore, following the events of 11 September 2001, the United States Government introduced domestic legislation to address homeland security, including the Patriot Act of 2001, which negatively impacted minorities, particularly Muslims and people of Arab or South Asian descent. The act had a chilling effect on the activities of many Muslims, who reportedly attended mosque less frequently or stopped completely. The chilling effect has never completely gone away. The so-called Muslim ban imposed in 2017 by the previous administration also disproportionately targeted and impacted Muslim Americans as well as Arab and South Asian Americans – and was arguably discriminatory in terms of international human rights. In this regard, however, the recognition by the Department of Homeland Security that extreme right-wing terrorist groups, including white supremacists, represent the number one domestic terrorism threat in the United States, targeting minority communities of colour and those based on religion or ethnicity, is a welcome step. 55. The Biden administration has replaced the former countering violent extremism programmes with the Center for Prevention, Programs and Partnerships, whose focus is on a wider spectrum of domestic terrorism, including white supremacists. The Department of Homeland Security has stated that Center is moving away from a law enforcement approach, aiming instead at a public health, whole-of-society approach, working with local communities. However, civil society organizations have argued that this approach simply expands the reach of the ineffective and discriminatory countering violent extremism programmes. 56. While the National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism includes a focus on white supremacist violence and the importance of respecting civil rights, concerns remain. The Department of Justice has issued guidelines on profiling that do not apply to national security investigations or at the border. This means that religious and ethnic profiling is still allowed to take place in these areas, often targeting Hispanic and Latinx and Muslim communities. 57. Religious or belief discrimination also affects non-theists, humanists and atheists in the United States where Christian bias or favouritism appears to contradict the official secular nature of the State. This includes discrimination through school-led prayers, which reportedly 13