A/HRC/28/66 open and frank public communication across boundaries is a prerequisite necessary for preventing resentments from escalating to fully-fledged conspiracy projections. 79. The media are moreover needed for overcoming the culture of silence, wherever it exists, in the face of violence in the name of religion. In conjunction with civil society organizations, representatives of the media should openly address incidents of violence, their root causes and political circumstances. Since a culture of impunity and a culture of silence often go hand in hand, putting an end to such silence may also be a first step towards tackling the problem of impunity. Journalists and other media workers who operate in dangerous environments require networks to defend them against violent threats. 80. Moreover, impressive media projects bear witness to the enormous positive potential of the media in facilitating cross-boundary understandings. This may also include the production of fiction aimed at overcoming societal divides. Particularly after experiences of traumatic collective violence, positive media initiatives can help restore the faculty of empathy by making people aware that the members of other religions or beliefs, far from being “aliens”, in fact have quite similar fears, hopes and feelings. Generally, the potential impact of media work across religious or other divides can hardly be overemphasized. 81. Freedom of religion or belief cannot flourish without freedom of expression, and the human rights enshrined in close neighbourhood in articles 18 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights mutually reinforce each other. Like most other human rights, freedom of expression is not without possible limits, and there can be situations in which the State has to impose restrictions, for instance, in order to protect targeted minorities against advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence. However, bearing in mind the high value of free communication and the indispensable functions of the media to facilitate public discussions, any limitations imposed on freedom of expression must be enacted with a high degree of empirical and normative diligence. Limitations must meet all the criteria enshrined in article 19, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant, which are further spelled out by the Human Right Committee in its general comment no. 34.29 Moreover, the Rabat Plan of Action also sets a high threshold for any restrictions on freedom of expression, including for the application of article 20, paragraph 2, of the International Covenant.30 82. Indeed, the best antidote to hate speech is “more speech”, in the sense of nuanced and precise media reporting, self-regulating bodies and a fair representation of religious and other minorities within the media, careful fact-finding in order to dispel myths and check negative gossiping, public statements by civil society organizations, sustainable interreligious communication and clear anti-violence messages sent by religious communities, as elaborated above. III. Conclusions and recommendations 83. Violence in the name of religion does not “erupt” in analogy to natural catastrophes and it should not be misconstrued as the inevitable result of sectarian hostilities that supposedly originated centuries or millennia ago, thus seemingly lying outside of the scope of the responsibility that different actors have today. It is 29 30 See CCPR/C/GC/34, paras. 21-52; see also principles 11 and 12 of the Camden Principles on Freedom of Expression and Equality, available from www.article19.org/data/files/pdfs/standards/thecamden-principles-on-freedom-of-expression-and-equality.pdf. See A/HRC/22/17/Add.4, appendix, para. 29. 19