A/HRC/40/52 or encouragement of terrorism, and acts relating to “propaganda” for terrorism. 71 The element common to these offences is that liability is based on the content of the speech, rather than the speaker’s intention or the actual impact of the speech. 72 Consistent with the Rabat Plan of Action on the prohibition of advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence,73 the threshold for these inchoate crimes requires the reasonable probability that the expression in question would succeed in inciting a terrorist act, thus establishing a degree of causal link or actual risk of the proscribed result occurring. 38. The Special Rapporteur is very concerned about the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on preventing the dissemination of terrorist content online.74 The definition contained in article 2 (5) of the proposal, building on the crime of public provocation to commit a terrorist offence contained in Directive (EU) 2017/541 of 15 March 2017 (already considered as posing a risk of violating the principles of legality and of proportionality75), omits the element of intent altogether. 39. In some States, any verbal criticism of the State, the Government or its authorities is considered as an act of terrorism. Such regulation stifles dissent and advocacy by peaceful critics, human rights activists and members of minority groups, and arrests, detentions and convictions are meant to send a message to citizens that they will be prosecuted if they engage in these broadly defined activities. 76 40. Many States have legislated counter-terrorism and security provisions preventing reporting on or publicly discussing acts of terrorism, through the criminalization of, inter alia, the publication of news or other material likely to promote terrorism, or the propagation of false information. Such measures seriously limit transparency and the accountability of government officials and security forces for human rights violations perpetrated in the course of countering terrorism, and can have a particularly negative impact on journalists and human rights defenders. Similarly, the criminalization of watching online “terrorist” or “extremist” content absent a requirement of terrorist intent can have a serious impact on civil society, notably investigative journalists, academic researchers and human rights advocates.77 41. Laws that criminalize having contact or corresponding with groups hostile to the State, or holding sit-ins, protests or meetings that could harm the unity or stability of the State, directly limit freedom of association and assembly. Definitions of terrorism that include damage to property, including public property, also seriously affect the right to freedom of assembly, as in the absence of other qualifications they can be used against individuals engaging in social movements where damage to property is unwittingly incurred.78 C. Legislation strictly regulating the existence of civil society 42. Often in the name of transparency, and to respond to the requirements of Financial Action Task Force recommendation 8, many States have adopted legislation creating a complex legal environment that has the effect of limiting, restricting and controlling civil society. Such laws typically include obligations to register; burdensome, complicated, invasive procedures and regulations; and provisions that threaten deregistration or even 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 12 “1847 délits d’apologie et de provocation au terrorisme enregistrés en 2016”, Le Monde, 19 January 2017. TUR 13-2018. A/HRC/31/65, para. 39. A/HRC/22/17/Add.4, appendix, para. 29. See http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-15336-2018-INIT/en/pdf. Human Rights Watch, “EU counterterrorism directive seriously flawed’ (30 November 2016). A/HRC/40/52/Add.2, paras. 27–28. 77 OL GBR 7/2018. 78 Front Line: International Foundation for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders, “Global Analysis 2018”, p. 7.