Read on Twitter
Agreed @dunstanhope this is a milestone esp when stated explicitly. Also v sig that clarification is sought on 'political leaders'. So far 'newsworthiness' and 'public interest' have been misconstrued giving political actors too much room for harmful speech. https://twitter.com/dunstanhope/status/1352442006673399810
International human rights law provides a rich source. Yes political actors may enjoy a wider right to freedom of expression (like academics or journalists), but it must be related to the discharge of that special function and even then it cannot extend to inciting violence.
Conversely, being a prominent politcal actor could also mean that the likelihood of real world harm is greater owing to reach, status and influence. These and other contextual factors are mentioned in the Rabat Plan of Action and could be applied here.
The recent case of Atamanchuk v. Russia at the European Court of Human Rights in fact uses the political status of the applicant to deduce the likelihood that incitment to hatred took place under ECHR Art. 10. @moodrewsmith @nick_clegg
