Since its first ever judgment Lawless v. Ireland (no. 1) the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has had occasion to adjudicate a large number of cases concerning terrorism. Combating terrorism remains one of the top priorities of the European union. The approach towards the online content possibly connected to terrorist propaganda has become stricter. Modern terrorism is global and decentralized while the social media and the social platforms such as Facebook, X, You Tube, TikTok are abused for terrorist propaganda. The aim of this paper is to observe some of the major human rights implications of combating incitement to and glorification of terrorism and to provide some elementary tools for researchers and students to use in the development of policy and practice in this field. The paper will provide a brief overview of how human rights (particularly freedom of expression) work in practice, and under what specific circumstances may be lawfully restricted. It will then outline the major international instruments concerned with the issue of incitement to terrorism, including the international framework governing freedom of expression. Considering the international human rights standards, decisions taken by European Court of Human Rights as a basic purpose of this article. Moreover, decisions of the UN Human Rights Committee (HRC), the European Court (ECtHR) and Commission of Human Rights (ECommHR) as well as decisions from outside the European Convention system such as those of the US Supreme Court. This paper will try to outline basic principles that apply to the restriction of freedom of expression in the context of combating direct incitement or glorification of terrorism.
Safiullah Qebchaq (Tue,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: