national security, public order, health or morals), and be necessary and proportionate to fulfilment of those aims.197 According to some international human rights treaties, in certain circumstances state parties are not only entitled to, but obliged to intervene to limit free speech, notably where it amounts to incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.198 Numerous cases at the ECtHR have considered whether the words used, understood in context, were a “call for the use of violence, armed resistance or uprising”.199 Blocking “extremist” views may actually fall foul of requirements of legal precision, and may go far beyond legitimate actions to counter incitement to violence or hate speech.200 Human rights courts have also noted the need to clearly distinguish between incitement to violence and “hostile”, “negative” or “acerbic” comments and criticism,201 as “the line between virulent or even offensive criticism and incitement must not […] be confused”.202 The ECtHR has also noted that “a message of intransigence as to the objectives of a proscribed organisation cannot be confused with incitement to violence or hatred”.203 Positive references to “resistance”, “struggle” or “liberation”,204 expressions 197  See Article 19 ICCPR, Article 19 UDHR, Article 10 ECHR, Article 13 ACHR. For example Article 19(3) ICCPR makes clear that the exercise of the right to freedom of expression “may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary: […] (b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.” The jurisprudence of the UN Human Rights Committee stressed that this also entails the principle that restrictions must be proportionate, see: General Comment No. 34 (Article 19: Freedoms of opinion and expression), CCPR, 12 September 2011, UN Doc. CCPR/C/ GC/34, e.g., paras. 22 and 34, (hereafter, General Comment No. 34, CCPR, UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/34). 198  See: Article 20 ICCPR; and Article 4 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD). 199  Belek and Velioglu v. Turkey, ECtHR, Judgment of 6 October 2015, paras. 24-27. 200  The so-called “Rabat Plan of Action” can provide useful guidance on what constitutes incitement, even though it is not an internationally binding standard that has been adopted by UN member states. It identifies six factors that need to be considered to distinguish forms of expression that should be defined as incitement to hatred and thus prohibited in accordance with Article 20 ICCPR: the context, position of the speaker, intent, content and form, extent of the speech act, and the likelihood, including imminence, of harm that may occur as a result of the speech. See: “Rabat Plan of Action on the prohibition of advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence”; Appendix in UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Report to the Human Rights Council (“Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the expert workshops on the prohibition of incitement to national, racial or religious hatred”), UN Doc. A/HRC/22/17/Add.4, 11 January 2013. On legal practices mowing towards criminalization of speech without a clear link to violence or other unlawful acts (e.g., discrimination) that appear to reflect an “increasing political and social focus on the perceived (non-violent) ideological and religious roots of ‘terrorism’”, see: A. Callamard, “Religion, Terrorism, and Speech in a ‘Post-Charlie Hebdo’ World”, Religion and Human Rights, Vol. 10, No. 3, 2015, pp. 207-228. 201  Falakaoglu v. Turkey, ECtHR, Judgment of 26 April 2005 (French), para. 35. 202  Incal v. Turkey, ECtHR, Judgment of 9 June 1998; Otegi Mondragon v. Spain, ECtHR, Judgment of 15 March 2011, para. 54 on negative and hostile criticism. 203  Surek and Ozdemir v. Turkey, ECtHR, Judgment of 8 July 1999, para. 61; Erdogdu v. Turkey, ECtHR, Judgment of 15 June 2000. 204  Ceylan v. Turkey, ECtHR, Judgment of 8 July 1999, para. 34. 56 Guidelines for Addressing the Threats and Challenges of “Foreign Terrorist Fighters”