ARTICLE 19 is following the current investigation into alleged hate speech at Glastonbury Festival. In considering the claims and what action to take, we urge UK authorities to respond with a clear understanding of what ‘hate speech’ really means under international human rights law, and the legal restrictions on it.
What happened at Glastonbury?
On Saturday, 28 June, during the punk-hip-hop duo Bob Vylan’s performance at the West Holts Stage, the lead singer led the audience in calls of ‘Death, death to the IDF [Israel Defense Forces]’. This prompted fierce criticism from the festival organisers and government ministers alike. Prime Minister Keir Starmer called the chants ‘appalling hate speech’.
Police announced they had launched an investigation into the matter on public order grounds, as well as into the performance by the band Kneecap. The police stated they were reviewing video footage of the performance to assess whether the singer had committed a hate crime or other criminal offence.
Israel’s embassy in the United Kingdom and some Jewish groups accused Glastonbury of promoting hate. The BBC has since stated that it should have stopped the livestream, indicating that it should have done so on grounds of possible incitement to violence. It has also stated that it will review its guidance regarding live broadcasts.
Additionally, the festival organisers stated that the ‘chants very much crossed a line,’ adding: ‘ We are urgently reminding everyone involved in the production of the Festival that there is no place at Glastonbury for antisemitism, hate speech or incitement to violence.’
On 1 July, Bob Vylan issued a statement saying they were ‘not for the death of Jews or Arabs or any other race or group’, but for the ‘dismantling of a violent military machine’.
What is ‘hate speech’ and what isn’t?
There is widespread confusion about how to define ‘hate speech’, especially in the eyes of the law. People often use the term to describe language that is shocking, upsetting, or offensive. But because something is offensive doesn’t mean it is illegal.
In fact, international human rights standards regarding free speech are designed to protect a wide range of speech, including speech that some people find difficult or controversial.
International human rights law recognises that not all hate speech is the same, and that lawmakers should respond differently depending on how severe the speech is and what impact it may have.
- First, there are the most extreme cases (including when speech is likely to lead to violence, discrimination, or real danger to others). This kind of speech must be prohibited.
- Second, there are situations where speech might be restricted, but only under strict conditions. Such restrictions must be truly ‘necessary and proportionate in a democratic society’.
- Finally, there is speech that may be offensive, shocking, or even hateful, but which does not cross the line into causing real harm. In these cases, the law generally protects this speech even if many people strongly disagree with what is being said.
‘Hate speech’ is often conflated with ‘hate crime’ but these concepts are different. ‘Hate crimes’ are actual criminal acts, such as violence carried out as a result of prejudice and sometimes as a result of hate speech.
Moreover, international human right law protects people’s right to criticise governments, national institutions, or state symbols. In other words, laws cannot be used to punish someone just because they insult or speak out against a country or its official symbols.
Did the Glastonbury incident break the law?
Applying international free speech standards to what happened at Glastonbury means the authorities must look at whether the chant actually called for violence or discrimination against people, not just whether it was offensive or targeted a controversial institution.
Under these standards, criticism, even harsh or provocative, of a government or its military is generally protected. Unless there is clear evidence that the chant was likely to incite real harm (violence, discrimination or hostility) against individuals, prosecuting it would go beyond what international human rights law allows.
ARTICLE 19 also always recommends that authorities should focus on non-criminal, proportionate measures that respect freedom of expression while addressing concerns.
What can the Festival and BBC do?
Glastonbury Festival, as a private event, has the right to set and enforce its own standards of conduct for performers, provided these do not unlawfully restrict freedom of expression.
Organisers can make clear that certain language or behaviour will not be tolerated at the festival. They can issue public statements distancing themselves from performers’ views, remind artists of their responsibilities, review booking and stage management policies, and, if necessary, decide not to invite certain acts in the future.
As for the BBC, as a public service broadcaster, it has a responsibility to balance free speech with its duty to follow ethical guidelines.
The BBC has also said it will not rebroadcast the performance. When discussing as part of news coverage, its representatives can provide context. This approach allows the BBC to respect freedom of expression while also taking its responsibilities seriously and being transparent with the public.
In both cases, the focus should be on clear communication, fair policies, and thoughtful responses, rather than rushing to punish or silence people for controversial speech.