The ‘strict test’ of justification means:  The restriction must be provided by law (legislation enacted by parliament, common law articulated by the courts or professional rules). The restriction must be precise and meet the criteria of legal certainty and predictability: it must be accessible to the individual concerned and its consequences for him or her must be foreseeable. Laws that are too vague or allow for excessive discretion in their application fail to protect individuals against arbitrary interference and do not constitute adequate safeguards against abuse.  The restriction must be necessary for the legitimate purpose of: o respecting the rights or reputations of others; or o protecting national security, public order, public health or morals. The latter criterion can be met only if the restriction addresses a specific, well-defined social need and is proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued, so that the harm to freedom of expression does not outweigh the benefits. There are also mandatory limitations on freedom of expression that States must adopt as provided for under Article 20 of the ICCPR. These include legal prohibitions on both “propaganda for war” and “advocacy of national, racial or religious200 hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence”. Such mandatory limitations however must still conform and meet the necessity and proportionality requirements contained in Article 19 (3) of the ICCPR.201 192 “It is not compatible with Article 19(3) of the ICCPR, to invoke such laws to suppress or withhold from the public information of legitimate public interest that does not harm national security or to prosecute journalists, researchers, environmental activists, human rights defenders, or others, for having disseminated such information.” - UN HRC, General comment no. 34, Article 19, para 30. 193 The Human Rights Committee observed in general comment No. 22 that “the concept of morals derives from many social, philosophical and religious traditions; consequently, limitations … for the purpose of protecting morals must be based on principles not deriving exclusively from a single tradition”. Any such limitations must be understood in the light of universality of human rights and the principle of non-discrimination – see UN Human Rights Committee (HRC), CCPR General Comment No. 22: Article 18 (Freedom of Thought, Conscience or Religion), 30 July 1993, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.4, https://www.refworld.org/docid/453883fb22.html. 194 See section 41, Crimes Act 2013. Persons found guilty are given a prison sentence of not more than 2 years. 195 Crimes Act 2021, section 117A(2). If a person is found guilty the penalty is either a fine (not more than 175 penalty units), or imprisonment for not more than 3 months. 196 Inter-Parliamentary Union and the United Nations (IPU), Human Rights: Handbook for Parliamentarians No. 26, (2016) 161-62. UN HRC, General comment no. 34, Article 19, para 22. 197 UNGA, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, A/74/486 (9 October 2019) https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Opinion/A_74_486.pdf. 198 UN HRC, General comment no. 34, Article 19, https://www.refworld.org/docid/4ed34b562.html. 199 IPU, Human Rights: Handbook for Parliamentarians, 161-62. UN HRC, General comment no. 34, Article 19, para 22. 200 It is important to note that any legislation favoring or penalizing particular religions or belief systems, or measures preventing or punishing criticism of religious leaders or doctrine, are not permitted under the ICCPR. 201 UN HRC, General comment no. 34, Article 19, para 48. State of Human Rights Report 2021 | 48