A/HRC/40/58 institutions, describing them as impious and hypocritical, and he asserted that Sharia law would replace democracy in Turkey. This resulted in an indictment for inciting people to hatred and hostility on the basis of a distinction founded on religion. The Government of Turkey maintained that the prosecution was justifiable on account of a pressing social need because “through his comments, which ran counter to the moral principles of a very large majority of the population, [Gündüz] had severely jeopardized social stability”.26 However, the European Court of Human Rights held that in the instant case, the need for the restriction in issue had not been convincingly established and that the interference with his freedom of expression was not based on sufficient reasons. VI. Impact of online platforms and related restrictions Globally, policymakers are facing the challenge of responding to online expression that incites persons to discriminate or perpetuate hostile or violent acts in the name of religion or belief. Online platforms have revolutionized the public square, instantaneously conferring celebrity on myriad views, including those which offend religious or belief communities, as well as those that constitute incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence. In recent years, States have adopted measures intended to combat incitement, and tech companies have adopted voluntary measures, including reporting tools and policies for swiftly removing content deemed illegal upon notification. 50. The majority of the world’s Internet users thus experience various forms of censorship or filtering. Such policies, critics note, have armed tech companies and the State with a tremendous degree of power, granting them the capacity to effectively chill expression, as people self-censor for fear of State sanction or widespread, and often, vitriolic, public rebuke. Critics also argue that to be effective, such laws need to curb the spread of intolerant attitudes, enfeeble extremist political forces and be shielded from abuse by authoritarian tendencies. But, oftentimes, they note, regulations fail to meet these standards. Instead, State attempts to combat incitement have contributed to the emergence of “digital authoritarianism” through increased surveillance, encroachment on privacy and broad restrictions on expression related to religion or belief, which has rendered cyberspace a perilous place for dissenters and religious minorities. Digital applications, for example, are reportedly being used to report allegations of blasphemy, and digital footprints can be used to assess compliance with faith-related observances. In addition, in several cases, social media has been used to incite hatred against religious communities or mobilize hostile or violent responses to offensive expression. 51. Governments have responded to this phenomenon which negatively impacts freedom of expression. Such responses have included the removal of online material to curtail access to particular types of content, the blocking and filtering of websites, the disclosure of the identities of bloggers critical of the politically dominant theology of the country, and holding intermediaries liable for hosting “hate speech” content uploaded by third parties. While there is a need to prevent and punish online incitement to violence, some of the current approaches, characterized by vaguely worded laws on what is proscribed and draconian intermediary penalties, are likely to be highly counterproductive, with chilling effects. The negative impact of the rise of digital authoritarianism is evident from the high number of cases of murders, attacks and prosecutions that have resulted from online activity. At the same time, criminal and terrorist groups have recently demonstrated the potential for online platforms to be used to propagate violent religious extremism or to incite violence against religious minorities. 52. Pressure is mounting throughout Europe for effective responses to online incitement and “hate speech”. For example, in Germany, the recently adopted Network Enforcement Act (“NetzDG”) requires tech companies to delete “obviously illegal” content within 24 hours of being notified. Other illegal content must be reviewed within seven days of being reported and then deleted. If the complaint management requirements are not met, fines of up to 50 million euros may be imposed. Said stipulations are problematic given that some of the criteria for determining which content is prohibited are based on vague and 53. 26 14 European Court of Human Rights, Gündüz v. Turkey¸ Application No. 35071/97, Judgment of 4 December 2003, para. 31.