the creation of an atmosphere of impunity. The peril of hate speech can be higher due to the identity of its author, its role, and its behavior in society. Hate speech expressed by officials is considered more dangerous, as they are official representatives of decisionmaking bodies, public policymakers, and, accordingly, opinion-makers in society. Political-religious leaders should refrain from using intolerant calls or expressions that could provoke violence, hostility, or discrimination. They also play a key role in speaking out against intolerance, discriminatory stereotypes, and hate speech.43 Carelessly uttered hate speech should be criticized and, in some cases, even prosecuted, but in this case, criminal liability is not mandatory. Such expressions may be condemned by public officials, and disciplinary action may be taken against both public officials and members of the professional community as a violation of professional ethics. For the analysis of the content of the speech, it is especially important to assess the consequences, as it can keep a certain group of people in an atmosphere of fear, psychologically depressed, and under constant threat. It is also important to estimate the reach of the hate speech and its spread among the public, which may be conditioned both by the fact of the location of its publicizing and whether it was widely spread through the mass media or not. The spread of such a word by the media should receive a legal assessment as well. The problem that the media operating in Armenia often spreads false, unconfirmed manipulative news, which contradicts the rules of journalistic ethics, has been raised in the last few years. Moreover, the word often spread in the media goes beyond the limits of freedom of expression, containing discrimination and incitement of hostility, especially towards LGBT people. It should be noted that most of the examples described in the above sections have again been covered by the media and have not been subjected to restrictive control over hate speech. The word spread through the media, wherever it is initially expressed, is becoming more widespread in society, influencing the public mood. It is no secret that the media, conventionally called the fourth power, can create a broad opinion, atmosphere, and attitude, which often makes them a tool by various political forces. In addition to the coverage of the speech on other platforms, the media also spread their editorial analysis, which can also be described as an abuse of speech. After all, hate speech must be real and clear, that is, the expressions used in the speech must either contain clear hostility, insult due to a certain feature, calls for violence, discrimination, or must be perceived as such. Its ambiguous perception reduces the degree of dangerousness.
State policy aimed at regulating hate speech The report on 2020, published last year, gave a detailed account of the main manifestations of hate speech, the targets, the authors, and the measures taken by the state against it. Since 2019, the state policy aimed at addressing hate speech has changed significantly 43 Annual report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2013, Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the expert workshops on the prohibition of incitement to national, racial or religious hatred. https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Opinion/SeminarRabat/ Rabat_draft_outcome.pdf
33
