Reports | 10 06 2026
lody ali
Syrian lawyer Yanal Mousa says Syrian law relies on Article 217 of the Penal Code No. 148 of 1949, which remains in force. The article stipulates that anyone who incites another person to commit a felony or misdemeanor is subject to the same punishment as the perpetrator of the crime itself.
In practice, this means that an instigator can face the same legal consequences as the principal offender. However, Mousa notes that penalties may be reduced if the incitement does not result in an actual criminal act.
Regarding sectarian and racist speech, Mousa points to other legal provisions that impose prison sentences ranging from three to 15 years on anyone who engages in acts, writings or speeches intended to stir sectarian or racial tensions, or to incite conflict among religious communities and different components of the nation.
Cybercrime Law: A Single Reference to Hate Speech
Lawyer Ezzeddine Ezzeddine identifies what he describes as a fundamental legal gap.
“There is no precise legal definition of hate speech in Syrian law,” he said. “As a result, speech is not criminalized simply because it constitutes hate speech.”
According to Ezzeddine, Article 31 of Cybercrime Law No. 20 of 2022 contains what he calls the only explicit reference to hate speech in Syrian legislation. The provision criminalizes the creation or management of a website, or the publication of digital content, intended to insult a religion, religious symbols or rituals, promote hatred, or incite violence. Violators face prison terms ranging from one to three years and fines between 3 million and 6 million Syrian pounds.
Ezzeddine added that prosecutors may rely on other provisions in both the Penal Code and Cybercrime Law No. 20 to address conduct associated with hate speech, including defamation, slander, insults, threats of physical or psychological harm, and the dissemination of content aimed at undermining national identity or inflaming sectarian or racial tensions.
Defining Hate Speech: A Double-Edged Sword
Ezzeddine cautions that introducing an explicit legal definition of hate speech carries both benefits and risks.
“A clear legal definition can help protect social cohesion from discrimination and incitement,” he said. “But it can also open the door to abuse and restrictions on freedom of expression if it is not drafted with extreme precision.”
The balance, he argues, lies in limiting criminal prosecution to the most serious cases, particularly direct incitement to violence.
Ezzeddine also believes that legislation alone cannot effectively combat hate speech.
“A law criminalizing hate speech by itself is not enough,” he said. “What is needed is an integrated legal and cultural framework based on citizenship and human rights standards. Two elements are essential: social culture and the legal system. Both must operate in parallel within a comprehensive strategy.”
Mousa, by contrast, argues that existing laws are sufficient to address the problem.
Lawyer Fadia Aziz disagrees. She contends that current legislation does not provide an adequate deterrent and that penalties should be increased when incitement or hate speech results in murder or acts of violence. In such cases, she argues, capital punishment should be imposed to halt what she describes as destructive rhetoric.
Aziz also calls for stricter and continuous monitoring of online content, particularly during periods of heightened incitement, backed by tough legislation and substantial financial penalties.
She warns that hate speech threatens civil peace and social cohesion and can produce catastrophic consequences. Alongside legal measures, she advocates dialogue initiatives among Syrians—particularly young people—to encourage constructive ways of addressing disagreements without resorting to extremism or incitement.
International Approaches: Between Protection and Restriction
Germany: Strict Controls and Concerns Over Overreach
In 2017, Germany adopted the Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG), requiring social media platforms to remove content deemed “manifestly unlawful” within 24 hours.
The law has faced criticism from legal scholars, including experts at Yale University, who argue that it poses risks to online free expression by encouraging platforms to over-police speech out of fear of fines that can reach €50 million.
United Kingdom: The Online Safety Act 2023
Britain has taken a different approach through the Online Safety Act, which received royal assent on Oct. 26, 2023.
The legislation establishes a “duty of care” for online platforms, requiring them to take action against illegal content while safeguarding content considered important to democratic discourse, including commentary related to political parties.
When Posts Precede Violence
Warnings about hate speech have not remained confined to academic or legal debates. In Syria, they have increasingly been linked to deadly events on the ground.
In a report published in May 2025, Syrians for Truth and Justice documented what it described as the central role of hate speech in fueling the coastal violence that erupted in March 2025. According to the report, security attacks coincided with the widespread circulation of misinformation and conspiracy theories on social media.
The report described online platforms as spaces for “mass mobilization calls” that deepened sectarian divisions and helped justify violence against perceived opponents.
The coastal violence was not an isolated case.
In July 2025, the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria reported that the period of violence in Sweida was also marked by high levels of hate speech and misinformation, much of it disseminated through social media.
International Standards: The Rabat Plan of Action
To navigate the tension between freedom of expression and hate speech, human rights organizations often rely on international frameworks, most notably the U.N.’s Rabat Plan of Action, adopted in 2012.
The plan outlines six criteria for assessing potentially harmful speech: context, speaker, intent, content, extent of dissemination, and the likelihood and imminence of harm.
Rights groups argue that speech ceases to be protected under freedom of expression standards when it reaches the threshold of incitement to violence.
In this context, Syrians for Truth and Justice has criticized Syria’s current constitutional declaration, issued in March 2025. The organization argues that Article 7, which prohibits incitement to violence, is insufficient because it focuses primarily on discriminatory actions by the state and does not explicitly address hate speech originating from individuals or non-state actors.
Law Alone Is Not Enough
Syrian authorities have taken several steps to address incitement and hate speech, though critics say the measures have fallen short.
In September 2025, prosecutors in Damascus announced the arrest of a woman accused of publishing sectarian and inflammatory content on social media. Earlier that year, in May, the Ministry of Higher Education prohibited hate speech on university campuses and warned that violators could face permanent expulsion.
Despite these and other scattered initiatives, many rights advocates and activists argue that existing efforts remain inadequate.
In December 2025, the Syrian Journalists Association held discussions on ways to confront hate speech. Participants emphasized the need for legislation that strikes a balance between protecting freedom of expression and combating hate speech.
A Long Road Toward Balance
One of the most significant challenges facing Syria during its transitional period is achieving a difficult balance: protecting society from hate speech and incitement without sliding into restrictions on fundamental freedoms, and without undermining the broader process of transitional justice.