The relationship of articles 19 and 20 ／ 52～54
52. Articles 19 and 20 are compatible with and complement each other. The acts that are addressed in article 20 are of such an extreme nature that they would all be subject to restriction pursuant to article 19, paragraph 3. As such, a limitation that is justified on the basis of article 20 must also comply with article 19, paragraph 3, which lays down requirements for determining whether restrictions on expression are permissible.
53. What distinguishes the acts addressed in article 20 from other acts that may be subject to restriction under article 19, paragraph 3, is that for the acts addressed in article 20, the Covenant indicates the specific response required from the State: their prohibition by law. It is only to this extent that article 20 may be considered as lex specialis with regard to article 19.
54. The Committee is concerned with the many forms of “hate speech” that, although a matter of concern, do not meet the level of seriousness set out in article 20. It also takes account of the many other forms of discriminatory, derogatory and demeaning discourse. However, it is only with regard to the specific forms of expression indicated in article 20 that States parties are obliged to have legal prohibitions. In every other case, while the State is not precluded in general terms from having such prohibitions, it is necessary to justify the prohibitions and their provisions in strict conformity with article 19.
CCPR ＨＰ： Article 19 Draft general comment No. 34
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrc/comments.htm
52. Articles 19 and 20 are compatible with and complement each other. The acts that are addressed in article 20 are of such an extreme nature that they would all be subject to restriction pursuant to article 19, paragraph 3. As such, a limitation that is justified on the basis of article 20 must also comply with article 19, paragraph 3, which lays down requirements for determining whether restrictions on expression are permissible.
53. What distinguishes the acts addressed in article 20 from other acts that may be subject to restriction under article 19, paragraph 3, is that for the acts addressed in article 20, the Covenant indicates the specific response required from the State: their prohibition by law. It is only to this extent that article 20 may be considered as lex specialis with regard to article 19.
54. The Committee is concerned with the many forms of “hate speech” that, although a matter of concern, do not meet the level of seriousness set out in article 20. It also takes account of the many other forms of discriminatory, derogatory and demeaning discourse. However, it is only with regard to the specific forms of expression indicated in article 20 that States parties are obliged to have legal prohibitions. In every other case, while the State is not precluded in general terms from having such prohibitions, it is necessary to justify the prohibitions and their provisions in strict conformity with article 19.
CCPR ＨＰ： Article 19 Draft general comment No. 34
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrc/comments.htm