Thailand: Computer Crime Act, 2017 Be prescribed by law: this means that a norm must be formulated with sufficient precision to enable an individual to regulate his or her conduct accordingly.17 Ambiguous, vague or overly broad restrictions on freedom of expression are therefore impermissible; Pursue a legitimate aim: exhaustively enumerated in Article 19(3)(a) and (b) of the ICCPR as respect of the rights or reputations of others, protection of national security, public order, public health or morals. As such, it would be impermissible to prohibit expression or information solely on the basis that they cast a critical view of the government or the political social system espoused by the government; Be necessary and proportionate. Necessity requires that there must be a pressing social need for the restriction. The party invoking the restriction must show a direct and immediate connection between the expression and the protected interest. Proportionality requires that a restriction on expression is not over-broad and that it is appropriate to achieve its protective function. It must be shown that the restriction is specific and individual to attaining that protective outcome and is no more intrusive than other instruments capable of achieving the same limited result.18 The same principles apply to electronic forms of communication or expression disseminated over the Internet.19 Prohibiting incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence It is also important to note that Article 20(2) ICCPR provides that any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence must be prohibited by law. At the same time, inciting violence is more than just expressing views that people disapprove of or find offensive.20 It is speech that encourages or solicits other people to engage in violence through vehemently discriminatory rhetoric. At the international level, the UN has developed the Rabat Plan of Action, an inter-regional multistakeholder process involving UN human rights bodies, NGOs and academia - which provides the closest definition of what constitutes incitement law under Article 20 (2) ICCPR.21 Terrorism and incitement to acts of terrorism There is no universally agreed definition of terrorism under international law. 22 At the same time, UN human rights bodies have highlighted the tension between freedom of expression and counter-terrorism measures. In particular, General Comment no. 34 clearly provides: 46. States parties should ensure that counter-terrorism measures are compatible with defined to ensure that they do not lead to unnecessary or disproportionate interference with freedom of expression. Excessive restrictions on access to information must also be avoided. The media plays a crucial role in informing the public about acts of terrorism and 17 HR Committee, L.J.M de Groot v. The Netherlands, No. 578/1994, UN Doc. CCPR/C/54/D/578/1994 (1995). HR Committee, Velichkin v. Belarus, No. 1022/2001, UN Doc. CCPR/C/85/D/1022/2001 (2005). 19 General Comment 34, op.cit., para. 43. 20 C.f. European Court, Handyside v the UK, judgment of 6 July 1976, para. 56. 21 See UN Rabat Plan of Action (2012). In particular it clarifies that regard should be had to six part test in assessing whether speech should be criminalised by states as incitement. 22 See e.g. UNODC, Frequently Asked Questions on International Law Aspects of Countering Terrorism, 2009; see also UNODC, The Use of the Internet for Terrorist Purposes, 2012, para. 49. 18 ARTICLE 19 Free Word Centre, 60 Farringdon Rd, London EC1R 3GA Page 8 of 24 www.article19.org +44 20 7324 2500