Article 20
1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.
13
The ICCPR was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1966 and
entered into force a decade later. As a treaty, its provisions have direct legal application only
in those countries that have voluntarily opted to become parties. This ratification has been extensive. According to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights,
160 states are party to the ICCPR.
14 Among them are the following countries whose filtering
practices are covered in studies by the OpenNet Initiative: Afghanistan, Algeria, Azerbaijan,
Bahrain, Belarus, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Libya, Moldova, Morocco, Nepal, North Korea, the Russian Federation, South Korea,
Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Venezuela,
Vietnam, Yemen, and Zimbabwe.
15
As with the declaration, the ICCPR is significant as a statement of a fundamental, minimum
set of conditions for the observance of human rights. The legitimacy of the ICCPR in this regard can be seen not only in its widespread ratification, but also in the myriad bodies that refer
to it. A number of domestic courts, legislatures, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and
international bodies frequently refer to the ICCPR directly when making decisions in which the
rights are implicated.
It is important, then, that the ICCPR also contains a broad, unquibbling guarantee of freedom of expression. Its provisions guarantee, subject to certain limits (discussed later), the
‘‘freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds.’’
The breadth of this conception is best appreciated by making comparisons to the way similar rights are framed in other documents and interpretations. Many domestic constitutions
draw distinctions, for example, between different forms of speech, and afford varying levels
of protection depending on the nature of the content. The U.S. Supreme Court, for example,
once considered that advertising was outside the scope of constitutional protection accorded
to freedom of speech. While the Court has now softened that absolutist position, advertising is
still not entitled to the same protection under the U.S. Constitution as other forms of expression. A similar stance has been articulated with regard to ‘‘obscene’’ speech. This tapered
rendition of freedom of expression differs from the conception in the ICCPR; indeed, the very
words with which the ICCPR right is expressed precludes such a narrow interpretation and
demands an expansive understanding of the right.
This broad reading has been confirmed by the United Nations Human Rights Committee
(UNHRC), a body of experts established under the ICCPR to scrutinize state compliance with
the ICCPR. In considering a challenge to laws restricting commercial advertising, the UNHRC
held that the right ‘‘must be interpreted as encompassing every form of subjective ideas and
opinions capable of transmission to others . . . [including] news and information, of commercial
Filtering and the International System
79
1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.
13
The ICCPR was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1966 and
entered into force a decade later. As a treaty, its provisions have direct legal application only
in those countries that have voluntarily opted to become parties. This ratification has been extensive. According to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights,
160 states are party to the ICCPR.
14 Among them are the following countries whose filtering
practices are covered in studies by the OpenNet Initiative: Afghanistan, Algeria, Azerbaijan,
Bahrain, Belarus, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Libya, Moldova, Morocco, Nepal, North Korea, the Russian Federation, South Korea,
Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Venezuela,
Vietnam, Yemen, and Zimbabwe.
15
As with the declaration, the ICCPR is significant as a statement of a fundamental, minimum
set of conditions for the observance of human rights. The legitimacy of the ICCPR in this regard can be seen not only in its widespread ratification, but also in the myriad bodies that refer
to it. A number of domestic courts, legislatures, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and
international bodies frequently refer to the ICCPR directly when making decisions in which the
rights are implicated.
It is important, then, that the ICCPR also contains a broad, unquibbling guarantee of freedom of expression. Its provisions guarantee, subject to certain limits (discussed later), the
‘‘freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds.’’
The breadth of this conception is best appreciated by making comparisons to the way similar rights are framed in other documents and interpretations. Many domestic constitutions
draw distinctions, for example, between different forms of speech, and afford varying levels
of protection depending on the nature of the content. The U.S. Supreme Court, for example,
once considered that advertising was outside the scope of constitutional protection accorded
to freedom of speech. While the Court has now softened that absolutist position, advertising is
still not entitled to the same protection under the U.S. Constitution as other forms of expression. A similar stance has been articulated with regard to ‘‘obscene’’ speech. This tapered
rendition of freedom of expression differs from the conception in the ICCPR; indeed, the very
words with which the ICCPR right is expressed precludes such a narrow interpretation and
demands an expansive understanding of the right.
This broad reading has been confirmed by the United Nations Human Rights Committee
(UNHRC), a body of experts established under the ICCPR to scrutinize state compliance with
the ICCPR. In considering a challenge to laws restricting commercial advertising, the UNHRC
held that the right ‘‘must be interpreted as encompassing every form of subjective ideas and
opinions capable of transmission to others . . . [including] news and information, of commercial
Filtering and the International System
79