26. 这类法律和政策存在问题，没有规定必须具备实施恐怖主义行为的意图，所针对的行为远远够不上实施恐怖主义行为。监管活动往往专门针对合法行使基本自由、特别是表达自由和宗教自由的行为。将赞扬、正名、辩解、鼓励、美化、倡导、或为恐怖主义申辩的言论定为犯罪的立法，其责任依据是言论内容，而不是说话人的意图或言论的实际影响。53 同样，当宗教内容成为被禁内容，那些强制要求托管第三方内容的信息和通信技术公司删除被认为涉及恐怖主义或极端主义的内容的法律和做法，或允许行政当局封锁、即便只是间接封锁网站的法律和做法(不设置任何司法控制或事后司法补救办法)，以及干脆封锁网站或整个互联网的措施，使政府规避了本身保护表达和意见自由权以及宗教信仰权的义务。54
26. In targeting acts that are far removed from the commission of an act of terrorism, such problematic law and policy fail to require that the intent to commit an act of terrorism existed. Regulation often solely targets acts that are the legitimate exercise of fundamental freedoms, particularly freedom of expression and freedom of religion. Legislation that criminalizes speech that praises, justifies, excuses, encourages, glorifies, advocates or that is an apologia of terrorism bases liability on the content of the speech, rather than the speaker’s intention or the actual impact of the speech.53 Similarly, law and practice that forces information and communications technology companies hosting third-party content to take down content deemed to be related to terrorism or extremism, or that allows executive authorities to – even indirectly – block websites, in the absence of any judicial controls or ex post facto judicial recourse, and measures to simply block websites or the entirety of the Internet allow Governments to bypass their own obligations to protect the rights to freedom of expression and opinion and to religious belief, when the banned content is religious material.54