CYIL vol. 15 (2024)

CYIL 15 ȍ2024Ȏ UNDERSTANDING THE CONCEPT OF “APOLOGY OF TERRORISM” … such measures taken as would harm the child’s health and development. 26 In the case Z.B. v. France subjecting parental authority to supervision of competent institutions would strike a fair balance between the child’s best interests, including the need to protect the child from a potential radicalisation on one hand, and the rights of the careless family members on the other. 4. Conclusions Combatting terrorism is currently shaped in very broad frames, including penalisation of the so-called precursor crimes meaning crimes preliminary to terrorist attacks. These can be understood in broad sense as preparatory acts that facilitates a terrorist crime or in restrictive sense as an act constituting a preparation of the terrorist act itself. 27 From this point of view combatting terrorist speech is of an utmost importance as terrorist expressions may lead to radicalisation and to the commission of terrorist acts. In the case Z. B. v. France the European Court of Human Rights adopted a very broad understanding of terrorist speech. For the first time it detached the incriminating message from its potential impact on national security and public order. The ECtHR accepted penalisation of an expression that did not cause any risk that one or more terrorist offences can be committed. Such an interpretation leads to disproportionate results and trespasses the limits for state interference in the freedom of speech as depicted in Article 10(2) ECHR. State authorities could have interfered in family rights instead and could have subjected parental authority over little Jihad to supervision of competent institutions. Such a reaction seems more reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances of the case Z. B. v. France . This interpretation of the ECtHR has serious consequences for individuals. They should take into account that jokes in a very bad taste made of terrorist acts are not protected by the Convention. Satire, although falling within the frames of Article 10 ECHR, has thus its limits and some provocative forms of expression can effectuate in penal responsibility.

26 ECtHR, Sahin v. Germany, app. no. 30943/96, judgment of 8 July 2003, at 66. ECtHR, Elsholz v. Germany, app. no. 25735/94, judgment of 13 July 2000, at 50. ECtHR, Kocherov and Sergeyeva v. Russia, app. no. 16899/13, judgment of 29 March 2016, at 95. 27 LLOBET ANGLÍ, M., CANCIO MELIÁ, M., WALKER, C. Introduction to Precursor Crimes of Terrorism, in: WALKER, C., LLOBET ANGLÍ, M., CANCIO MELIÁ, M. Precursor Crimes of Terrorism, Cheldenham 2022, p. 6.

149