The most dangerous words aren’t necessarily the most violent ones. And disinformation campaigns could offer a new avenue for establishing responsibility.
From: Politico BY PETER POMERANTSEV
Peter Pomerantsev is a Ukrainian-born British journalist and a senior fellow at the Agora Institute at Johns Hopkins University.
Propaganda plays a vital role in Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. But will those pushing these campaigns face accountability? Or, will they walk away, claiming “free speech” as their defense?
When, exactly, are words war crimes?
The challenge for anyone trying to bring propagandists to trial has always been connecting vile words to horrific acts.
Consider the Nuremberg trials: One of the propagandists on trial, Julius Streicher — editor of the vitriolic antisemitic Der Sturmer, a leading Hitler ally and senior party member from the earliest days — was found guilty of inciting extermination of the Jews.
But Hans Fritzsche, the smooth-talking editor-in-chief of the Reich’s radio, was found not guilty. He claimed he was merely following instructions with his screeds and had no idea about the Holocaust. After the tribunal, new evidence emerged that Fritzsche actively helped bring about the murder of Jews in Poland — but by then it was too late.
Since Nuremberg, the world has seen mixed results when it comes to holding propagandists accountable. After the Rwandan genocide, media bosses who encouraged militias and called for the extermination of Tutsis were found guilty of incitement to commit genocide. By contrast, Serbian ultranationalist Vojislav Šešelj was found not guilty, as judges at The Hague couldn’t ascertain whether his dehumanizing speeches about Bosnians were intended to cause specific criminal acts during the Balkan wars.
Voice of Ukraine 