No abstract

No abstract

This article examines the ways that the criminal justice systems of England and the Netherlands deal with terrorist speech in the form of direct and indirect incitement to terrorism. This contribution commences with a discussion of the conditions under which the criminalisation of terrorist speech is justified. That discussion identifies criteria that must be satisfied if liability for terrorist speech is to be justified. The specific English and Dutch legal frameworks for addressing terrorist speech are then assessed in light of those criteria. This comparison provides the vantage point for a critical analysis of the merits and defects of terrorist speech offences. This contribution ends by identifying and discussing doctrinal elements that must be considered in order to ensure compliance with fundamental principles of criminal law and to prevent over-criminalisation.

No abstract

No abstract