A/HRC/44/49/Add.2 “hooliganism.”89 Through submissions from civil society, the Special Rapporteur has learned of numerous examples of such threats to artistic freedom. 40. Hate speech: States often assert vague prohibitions on “advocacy of hatred” that do not amount to incitement under article 20 of the Covenant or meet the requirement of necessity under article 19 (3) thereof (see A/67/357). For instance, three members of the punk rock band Pussy Riot were prosecuted and convicted in Russia for incitement to religious hatred or enmity for or a controversial public performance in a cathedral.90 The Russian courts deemed the performance to be “extremist”, and banned access to video recordings of the performance on the internet. The case was brought before the European Court of Human Rights, which found these measures to be disproportionate and unnecessary in a democratic society.91 D. Business and human rights 41. Social media platforms and music and video streaming channels are dominant platforms on which artists disseminate their work.92 Online accessibility of art has also meant that there are many online marketplaces that sell affordable art of previously difficult to discover artists.93 Art is becoming more accessible to the public, and the public is becoming more accessible to artists. However, the digital space also brings threats to artistic freedom of expression. Governments impose specific penalties on online expression. Companies employ terms of service that are often opaque to artists and audiences, with enforcement that appears to vary across jurisdictions. The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights establish “global standard[s] of expected conduct” that should apply throughout company operations and wherever they operate.94 In the 2018 report on content moderation, the Special Rapporteur explained that the Guiding Principles establish a framework according to which companies should, at a minimum: (a) “Avoid causing or contributing to adverse human rights impacts and seek to prevent or mitigate such impacts directly linked to their operations, products or services by their business relationships, even if they have not contributed to those impacts (principle 13); (b) Make high-level policy commitments to respect the human rights of their users (principle 16); (c) Conduct due diligence that identifies, addresses and accounts for actual and potential human rights impacts of their activities, including through regular risk and impact assessments, meaningful consultation with potentially affected groups and other stakeholders, and appropriate follow-up action that mitigates or prevents these impacts (principles 17−19); (d) Engage in prevention and mitigation strategies that respect principles of internationally recognized human rights to the greatest extent possible when faced with conflicting local law requirements (principle 23); (e) Conduct ongoing review of their efforts to respect rights, including through regular consultation with stakeholders, and frequent, accessible and effective communication with affected groups and the public (principles 20−21); 89 90 91 92 93 94 14 Report on the right to freedom of artistic expression and creativity, A/HRC/23/34, ¶31. For an earlier communication involving Pussy Riot, see RUS 2/2012, 11 May 2012. ECtHR, Mariya Alekhina and Others v. Russia, Application no. 38004/12; See also, https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/mariya-alekhina-others-v-russia/. Sara Whyatt, Promoting the freedom to imagine and create, in UNESCO, Global Report “Re|Shaping Cultural Policies”, 2018, http://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/reshaping-culturalpolicies-2018-en.pdf. “Social media platforms have become the gallery, the museum, the workshop. People are using this to leverage corporate sponsorships, book deals.” NPR, Sam Sander, How Instagram Is Changing Life For Artists, May 7, 2019. https://www.npr.org/2019/05/07/720929968/how-instagram-is-changinglife-for-artists. Guiding Principles, principle 11. See also Report on Content Moderation A/HRC/38/35, ¶10.