Dr. Kim also referred to hate speech in the internet. He pointed out that when the internet appeared, it was expected that people would be able to share their experiences and knowledge and promote mutual understanding. However, especially through social networking services, hate speech by anonymous sender has caused serious risk to democratic society and violation of human dignity. In countries where hate speech is not punished, victims must search for the perpetrator and recover from damage on their own. He pointed out that access providers and host providers rarely give information of a user. He provided examples on this regard and on legislation adopted to address hate speech. Dr. Kim concluded stating that hate speech is being recognised as a dangerous act of inciting violence and social exclusion, especially in the light of the extent and speed of the information remaining in the internet. He emphasised that unlawful and illegal postings must be quickly deleted to avoid expansion and continuation of the damage of the victims and noted that an international taskforce and legal measures regarding social networking service host providers are urgently needed. He also declared that disclosure systems of the sending information must be constructed and that codes of conduct for social networking service providers must be made compulsory. Ms. Agustina Del Campo, Director of the Center for Studies on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information (CELE) stated that there is international consensus that Art 20 should be read in conjunction with art 19 and serve as a “lex specialis”. The prohibition of hate speech with incitement is the only mandated speech prohibition on the ICCPR. Lacking incitement, discriminatory speech can also be regulated and prohibited, ideally not through criminal law but through civil and administrative law, as long as the restrictions fulfill the requirements set out in article 19 of the Covenant. Ms. Del Campo noted that despite existing efforts like the Rabat Plan, the lack of a clear and unambiguous definition of hate speech constitutes one of the main challenges towards the complementarity that should exist between articles 19 and 20 ICCPR. She added that current trends in the use and abuse of the term “hate speech” put political speech, dissent and also minority speech, at risk. She stated that it is necessary to be mindful of the relationship between intermediary liability law and international human rights law. Ms. Del Campo noted that there is agreement that criminal liability for hate speech should be an exception reserved for instances that carry incitement and that for other discriminatory speech, civil or administrative measures are preferred. She added that the international community has consistently recommended education, campaigns, counter speech, and access to information as least restrictive and more effective means to combat discrimination. She pointed out that clear domestic legislative and institutional frameworks are essential to guarantee accountability for hate speech, promote equality and respect freedom of speech and expression. 13