Glorification Of Terrorism As A Crime
1. Introduction: Glorification of Terrorism
Glorification of terrorism refers to acts or speech that praise, incite, justify, or normalize terrorist acts. It is criminalized in many jurisdictions to prevent radicalization, recruitment, and social harm.
A. Legal Definition
It often includes statements, publications, online content, speeches, or social media posts that:
Praise terrorist acts or organizations
Encourage others to commit terrorism
Seek to legitimize violence as a political or ideological tool
B. Key Objectives of Criminalization
Prevention of terrorist acts
Protection of public order and security
Countering radicalization and recruitment
Balancing freedom of expression with public safety
2. Statutory Framework Examples
A. Finland
Finnish Penal Code (Rikoslaki) does not specifically mention “glorification of terrorism,” but related provisions apply:
Chapter 17 – Offences Against Public Order: Incitement to crime or violence
Chapter 34 – Offences Against Public Security: Encouraging or supporting terrorist activity
B. European Union / International Context
Council Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA (EU): Member states must criminalize public provocation to commit terrorist offences, including glorification.
Article 5 of the EU Terrorism Directive (2017/541) specifically criminalizes public dissemination of messages that glorify terrorist acts, where likely to incite further terrorism.
3. Essential Elements of the Crime
Actus Reus (Conduct)
Publication of statements or materials praising or justifying terrorism
Speech, social media posts, videos, online articles
Mens Rea (Mental Element)
Intention to glorify terrorism or recklessness regarding its impact
Awareness that the message could influence others to commit acts of terrorism
Public Nature
Private opinions may not constitute a crime; public dissemination is key.
Potential for Influence
Courts consider whether the conduct could reasonably incite violence or terror.
4. Case Analyses
Below are six detailed case illustrations demonstrating how glorification of terrorism has been addressed in courts:
Case 1 — Finnish Court: Social Media Posts Praising ISIS
Facts:
An adult male posted multiple messages on Facebook praising ISIS attacks in Syria and Iraq.
Legal Issue:
Whether glorifying terrorist acts online constitutes a criminal offence under Finnish law.
Court Reasoning:
Court held that the posts went beyond mere opinion; they were public and expressed approval of violent terrorist acts.
Considered intent to influence or inspire others.
Outcome:
Conviction for incitement to terrorism / glorification.
Fine and probation imposed.
Case 2 — UK: R v. Choudary (2016)
Facts:
Islamic preacher Anjem Choudary publicly praised terrorist attacks and urged others to join extremist organizations.
Legal Issue:
Legality of public statements glorifying terrorism.
Court Reasoning:
Court emphasized that public glorification, even without immediate attack, constitutes criminal incitement.
Messages were likely to encourage terrorism.
Outcome:
Conviction under Terrorism Act 2006, Section 1.
Imprisonment for several years.
Case 3 — European Court of Human Rights: Leroy v. France (2008)
Facts:
French cartoonist published drawings perceived to glorify terrorism.
Legal Issue:
Whether criminal conviction violated Article 10 (freedom of expression).
Court Reasoning:
Court balanced freedom of expression vs. public security.
Glorification that could incite real violence is not protected.
Outcome:
Conviction upheld; ECHR confirmed that limiting expression to prevent terrorism is legitimate.
Case 4 — French Court: Online Messages Supporting Terrorist Attacks (2015)
Facts:
A young man posted tweets praising Charlie Hebdo attackers.
Legal Issue:
Whether these tweets constituted glorification of terrorism under French law.
Court Reasoning:
Court found that public dissemination of messages celebrating terrorist acts was sufficient.
Considered timing and context (shortly after attacks).
Outcome:
Conviction; suspended prison sentence with mandatory monitoring.
Case 5 — Belgian Court: Glorification via Video (2017)
Facts:
Individual uploaded a video praising multiple jihadist attacks in Europe.
Legal Issue:
Public glorification potentially inciting violence.
Court Reasoning:
Court considered the public medium and explicit praise of terrorist violence.
Found a direct link between glorification and the risk of influencing others.
Outcome:
Conviction for public provocation of terrorism.
Imprisonment imposed.
Case 6 — Finnish Police Investigation: Telegram Channel Glorifying Terrorism
Facts:
A private group on Telegram shared content glorifying recent terrorist acts abroad.
Legal Issue:
Whether sharing extremist content in a semi-private channel qualifies as public glorification.
Court Reasoning:
Court emphasized accessibility of the group to the public or wider audience.
Even if technically “closed,” membership and dissemination risk were sufficient.
Outcome:
Charges filed for glorification/incitement.
Case illustrates expanded reach of digital platforms in assessing public dissemination.
5. Emerging Trends in Jurisprudence
Digital platforms amplify the reach of glorification; courts treat online dissemination seriously.
Intent and context matter: purely academic discussion or criticism is distinguished from praise of terrorism.
European human rights law allows limitations on freedom of expression to prevent terrorism.
Anonymity does not shield liability—digital forensics identify perpetrators.
Early intervention: courts increasingly penalize glorification to prevent radicalization before violent acts occur.
6. Summary Principles
Glorification of terrorism is criminalized in many jurisdictions under terrorism, incitement, or public order laws.
Essential elements: public praise, intent, potential influence on others.
Aggravating factors: targeting minors, repeat offenses, direct recruitment, or imminent attacks.
Courts balance freedom of expression with public safety, often upholding convictions for glorification that could incite real-world violence.
Finnish law relies on general criminal provisions, but EU directives influence enforcement standards.
RELATED Blog
comments