Incitement To Terrorism Case Law
I. Overview: Incitement to Terrorism
A. What is Incitement to Terrorism?
Incitement to terrorism refers to encouraging, provoking, or persuading others to commit acts of terrorism.
It can include direct calls to violence, distribution of propaganda, or indirect encouragement.
Many countries criminalize incitement as a preventive measure to stop terrorist acts before they happen.
B. Legal Elements
Intent: The defendant must intentionally encourage terrorism.
Causation: The incitement must be likely to lead to terrorist acts.
Public nature: Often requires communication to others (speech, publications, social media).
Imminence and likelihood: Some jurisdictions require a clear and imminent threat.
C. Challenges
Balancing freedom of expression with public safety.
Determining the line between radical speech and criminal incitement.
II. Key Case Law on Incitement to Terrorism
1. R v. Gul (2013)
Jurisdiction: United Kingdom (Supreme Court)
Facts:
Defendant traveled to a terrorist training camp.
Charged with incitement to commit terrorist acts based on his communications encouraging others.
Issue:
Whether incitement requires proof that the speech was intended to cause imminent violence.
Holding:
Court held incitement requires intent to encourage terrorism, but not necessarily imminent violence.
Conviction was upheld based on evidence of encouragement.
Importance:
Clarified the threshold for incitement under UK Terrorism Act.
Emphasized intent over imminence in incitement prosecutions.
2. United States v. Al-Farekh (2015)
Jurisdiction: United States (Federal Court)
Facts:
Defendant posted online videos encouraging attacks against US interests.
Charged with inciting terrorism through speech.
Issue:
Does online advocacy constitute criminal incitement?
Holding:
Court found defendant’s speech was intentional incitement likely to produce imminent lawless action.
Conviction upheld under material support statutes.
Importance:
Confirmed that online speech can be incitement if it meets intent and likelihood criteria.
Applied the Brandenburg standard (“imminent lawless action”).
3. R v. Choudary (2016)
Jurisdiction: United Kingdom
Facts:
Defendant ran a website disseminating extremist propaganda urging violence.
Convicted of inciting terrorism by encouraging support for terrorist groups.
Issue:
Whether indirect encouragement through propaganda counts as incitement.
Holding:
Court held that propaganda encouraging terrorism can be incitement even without direct call to action.
Emphasized context and audience impact.
Importance:
Demonstrated courts’ approach to indirect incitement via media platforms.
Strengthened legal tools against extremist propaganda.
4. Sarkis v. France (2014)
Jurisdiction: European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)
Facts:
Defendant convicted in France for publicly praising terrorist acts.
Issue:
Whether conviction violated freedom of expression under Article 10 ECHR.
Holding:
Court ruled that incitement to terrorism is not protected speech.
Conviction was proportionate to protect public safety.
Importance:
Affirmed that hate speech and incitement to terrorism can be restricted under human rights law.
Provided guidance on balancing rights and security.
5. Public Prosecutor v. Hasan (2017)
Jurisdiction: Singapore
Facts:
Defendant delivered speeches glorifying terrorism and encouraging support.
Issue:
Can glorification of terrorism amount to incitement?
Holding:
Court held glorification encouraging others to commit terrorism is incitement.
Conviction and heavy sentence imposed.
Importance:
Recognized glorification as incitement under anti-terror laws.
Expanded understanding beyond direct calls for violence.
6. United States v. Rahman (1995)
Jurisdiction: United States (Federal Court)
Facts:
Defendant gave sermons encouraging jihad against the US government.
Issue:
Whether religious speech constituted incitement to terrorism.
Holding:
Court held sermons constituted incitement when speech was intended and likely to produce imminent violence.
Conviction for conspiracy and incitement upheld.
Importance:
Early case defining religious speech as potential incitement.
Reinforced intent and imminence standards.
III. Summary Table
| Case | Jurisdiction | Key Legal Principle | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| R v. Gul (2013) | UK | Intent to encourage terrorism suffices | Imminence not required for incitement |
| US v. Al-Farekh (2015) | US | Online speech can be incitement if intent & likelihood | Applied Brandenburg imminent lawless action |
| R v. Choudary (2016) | UK | Propaganda encouraging terrorism = incitement | Indirect incitement through media |
| Sarkis v. France (2014) | ECHR | Incitement not protected under freedom of expression | Balance of rights & public safety |
| Public Prosecutor v. Hasan (2017) | Singapore | Glorification of terrorism can be incitement | Expanded scope of incitement |
| US v. Rahman (1995) | US | Religious speech can be incitement if intent & imminence | Defined limits on extremist religious speech |
IV. Conclusion
Incitement to terrorism is prosecuted as a preventive offense targeting speech or conduct likely to lead to terrorist acts. Courts worldwide:
Emphasize intent to encourage terrorism.
Apply varying standards on imminence of harm.
Recognize direct calls and indirect propaganda as incitement.
Balance free speech rights with national security.
RELATED Blog
0 comments