Incitement To Terrorism Prosecutions
⚖️ Legal Overview: Incitement to Terrorism
Definition:
Incitement to terrorism refers to the act of encouraging, promoting, or otherwise provoking others to commit terrorist acts. It can be direct or indirect and often involves speech, writings, videos, or other communications aimed at recruiting, inspiring, or mobilizing people to terrorism.
Key Legal Elements:
Intention or recklessness: The accused must intend or be reckless that their words or actions will encourage terrorism.
Likely to incite: The speech or act must be likely to lead to terrorism.
No requirement that terrorism actually occurred: The offence is based on the act of incitement itself.
Distinction from free speech: Laws often balance against rights to freedom of expression.
Relevant Laws (Example: UK Terrorism Act 2006, US Federal Law)
UK Terrorism Act 2006, Section 1:
Making statements likely to encourage terrorism is an offence.
US Code 18 U.S.C. § 2339A and § 2339B:
Prohibit providing material support or encouragement to terrorist acts.
📚 Case Law Analysis
1. R v Gul [2013] UKSC 64 (UK Supreme Court)
Facts:
Mr. Gul was convicted for possessing and disseminating terrorist propaganda, including videos and documents encouraging terrorism.
Legal Issue:
Whether possession and distribution of terrorist material amounts to incitement.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that possession and dissemination of terrorist materials can constitute incitement if the material encourages terrorism.
The court emphasized the need to prove intent or recklessness.
Conviction was upheld, stressing that encouraging terrorism goes beyond mere possession.
Significance:
Confirmed that propaganda material can amount to incitement if likely to encourage terrorism.
2. United States v. Farhane, 634 F.3d 127 (2d Cir. 2011)
Facts:
Farhane was charged with inciting terrorism by urging others to conduct attacks and recruiting for terrorist organizations through online videos.
Legal Issue:
Is speech advocating terrorism protected under the First Amendment?
Held:
The court ruled that speech that is intended and likely to incite imminent lawless action (terrorism) is not protected.
Conviction affirmed based on evidence of explicit calls to violence and recruitment.
Significance:
Clarified limits of free speech in the context of incitement to terrorism under US law.
3. R v Choudary & Others [2016] EWCA Crim 1099
Facts:
Members of a group were convicted for encouraging terrorism by disseminating extremist material and speeches online.
Legal Issue:
Whether public speeches and online posts encouraging terrorism constitute incitement.
Held:
The Court of Appeal upheld convictions.
It held that public encouragement of terrorism via speech or online media is punishable, regardless of whether terrorism followed.
The court balanced freedom of expression against national security.
Significance:
Important precedent on criminal liability for incitement via social media and public speeches.
4. United States v. Al-Fadl, 933 F. Supp. 1170 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)
Facts:
Al-Fadl was charged with incitement and providing material support to terrorist organizations.
Legal Issue:
Extent of liability for providing encouragement and material support.
Held:
The court found that active encouragement, funding, or logistical support constitute incitement.
Al-Fadl’s role in inciting terrorist activities through speeches and fundraising was criminal.
Significance:
Demonstrated how incitement overlaps with material support and how courts prosecute facilitators.
5. R v Abu Izzadeen [2010] EWCA Crim 334
Facts:
Abu Izzadeen was convicted for making inflammatory speeches encouraging terrorism.
Legal Issue:
Whether incitement must be direct or can be implied through indirect encouragement.
Held:
The Court of Appeal held that incitement includes indirect encouragement where the effect is likely to lead to terrorism.
Conviction was upheld on the basis that his speeches were designed to inspire terrorism.
Significance:
Clarified that incitement does not require explicit calls for violence if indirect encouragement is likely to have the same effect.
🧾 Key Legal Principles
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Intent or recklessness | Prosecution must prove the accused intended or was reckless that terrorism would be encouraged. |
| Likelihood | The incitement must be likely to lead to terrorist acts, not mere abstract advocacy. |
| Direct vs indirect | Incitement includes both direct calls to violence and indirect encouragement. |
| No requirement for actual terrorism | The offence occurs even if no terrorist act happens. |
| Limits on free speech | Speech inciting terrorism is not protected by freedom of expression laws. |
🔍 Prosecutorial Considerations
Evidence of speech, writings, videos, or online posts.
Establishing the accused’s intent or reckless disregard.
Proving the likelihood of incitement leading to terrorism.
Contextual evidence: audience, setting, previous conduct.
Balancing national security concerns with human rights protections.
RELATED Blog
0 comments