Strengthening Journalism: UNESCO’s Guide on Reporting Holocaust Denial and Antisemitism

Titled Understanding Antisemitism and Holocaust Denial and Distortion: a guide for journalists, this publication is the second in a series of guides designed to assist media professionals in reporting on various manifestations of hate speech.

This Guide provides insights into antisemitism as a form of discrimination and exclusion that violates fundamental human rights, affecting both direct and indirect victims while fueling divisive narratives in society. It sets out to foster reflexive, trauma-informed and human rights-based approach to media reporting based on the principle of “Do no Harm”. 

Holocaust denial, as outlined in the guide, is a conspiracy theory that falsely claims the Holocaust was fabricated to manipulate global affairs. This denial serves to absolve  perpetrators of responsibility and supports nationalist agendas while promoting antisemitic stereotypes that paint Jewish people as deceitful or manipulative. 

Holocaust distortion, while acknowledging that the Holocaust took place, deliberately misrepresents historical facts. Distortions may include minimizing the number of victims, exaggerating the role of rescuers, or omitting difficult aspects of national histories.  Like denial, distortion sustains antisemitic stereotypes by denying the full scope of Jewish people’s victimhood.

This guide offers guidance for media professionals by: 

• Identifying contemporary antisemitism and its manifestations.
• Clarifying the distinction between Holocaust denial and distortion.
• Providing existing legal frameworks on Holocaust denial and distortion, while considering  freedom of expression principles. 
• Offering key questions to guide accurate and responsible reporting on antisemitism and Holocaust denial and distortion. 
• Suggesting editorial approaches to ensure balanced and informed coverage. 

Under international law, any restrictions on the right to freedom of expression, including those related to Holocaust denial, must adhere to the three-part test’ under article 19(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR): 

• Restrictions must be clearly defined in law, avoiding vague or overly broad provisions that risk suppressing legitimate speech.
• Restrictions must serve a legitimate purpose. The commonly cited rationales of preserving harmony or protecting the honour of national leaders or symbols are not legitimate goals for hate speech law. Nor should the law protect religions or other belief systems from criticism – it is believers’ rights to practice their faith, not the content of their beliefs, that need legal protection.
• Restrictions must be a necessary and proportionate means of achieving the stated public-interest goal. Restrictions that are too broad or too punitive would discourage legitimate expression.