International Day for Countering Hate Speech

International human rights law does not contain a formal, universally agreed legal definition of hate speech, so United Nations bodies rely on a practical working description and on specific legal prohibitions.

For policy purposes, the UN Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech describes hate speech as any kind of communication in speech, writing, or behavior that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or group based on identity factors such as religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, color, descent, gender, or other characteristics.

Legally, binding rules focus on narrower categories, such as advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence, which states must prohibit under treaties like the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.  [1]

Under international standards, not all offensive or hurtful expression is unlawful hate speech.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights protects freedom of expression, including ideas that may shock, offend, or disturb, and allows restrictions only when they are clearly set out in law and are necessary and proportionate to protect legitimate aims such as the rights of others or public order.

A much narrower set of expression must be prohibited by law, including advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence, and direct and public incitement to commit genocide.

UN guidance such as the Rabat Plan of Action recommends distinguishing between criminally punishable incitement, speech that may justify civil or administrative sanctions, and speech that is offensive but should be addressed through education and counter‑speech rather than criminalization.  [1]

To assess whether expression reaches the level of incitement that must or may be restricted, UN human rights experts use a contextual approach summarized in the Rabat Plan of Action.

This guidance proposes a six‑part threshold test that looks at the social and political context, the status and reach of the speaker, the speaker’s intent, the content and form of the speech, the extent and magnitude of its dissemination, and the likelihood and imminence of resulting harm.

Only when several of these elements point to a real risk of discrimination, hostility, or violence does international guidance support criminal sanctions.

This is meant to protect individuals and groups from serious harm while preventing overly broad restrictions on legitimate expression.  

Research summarized by UN agencies shows that exposure to hate speech can cause significant emotional and psychological harm.

People who are targeted, or who identify with targeted groups, often experience fear, anxiety, and lowered self‑esteem, and may face a higher risk of depression.

UN bodies such as UNESCO and UNFPA note that online hate and harassment frequently lead individuals, especially women, girls, and LGBTQI+ people, to withdraw from public debate, limit their use of social media, or self‑censor to avoid further abuse.

This not only harms their well‑being but also reduces the diversity of voices in public life and undermines equal participation in democratic discussion.  [1]

The UN Office on Genocide Prevention identifies sustained, dehumanizing hate speech as a risk factor and early warning sign for atrocity crimes such as genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.

Historical cases, including the Holocaust and the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, show how propaganda that portrays targeted groups as less than human, criminal, or dangerous can prepare the ground for systematic violence.

For this reason, treaties like the Genocide Convention and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court require states to punish direct and public incitement to commit genocide even before any act of violence takes place.

Monitoring and countering hate speech is therefore seen as part of broader efforts to prevent mass atrocities.

International human rights law requires states both to protect people from discrimination and violence and to safeguard freedom of expression.

UN guidance stresses that any restriction on expression must meet a strict three‑part test: it must be provided by clear and accessible law, pursue a legitimate aim such as protecting the rights of others, and be necessary and proportionate in a democratic society.

The UN Human Rights Committee and the Rabat Plan of Action encourage states to reserve criminal sanctions for the most serious forms of incitement, to avoid vague bans on “offensive” speech, and to favor education, dialogue, and counter‑speech as primary tools.

UN experts also warn that hate‑speech laws must not be misused to silence political opposition, human rights defenders, or criticism of religious or state authorities.  

UNESCO and other international bodies consider education and media and information literacy central to long‑term strategies against hate speech.

Instead of focusing only on removing harmful content, these approaches aim to build critical thinking, empathy, and knowledge of human rights so that people can recognize stereotypes, manipulative narratives, and dehumanizing language.

Educational programs encourage students and online users to question sources, understand how algorithms can amplify extreme content, and respond to hateful expression with informed, non‑violent counter‑speech.

According to UNESCO, such education helps reduce the appeal of hateful narratives, strengthens social cohesion, and supports a culture in which harmful speech is challenged by communities themselves rather than only through punishment.  [1]