In the context of electoral campaigns, the use of expressions or narratives that unduly target migrants, asylum seekers or refugees, as individuals or as groups - including through stigmatising or discriminatory portrayals — raises the issue not only of balancing, on the one hand, the preservation of pluralism of political opinions and, on the other hand, the fundamental rights of others, but also with respect to the integrity of the democratic and electoral process (Article 3 Protocol 1 ECHR). At the same time, safeguarding electoral integrity requires ensuring a genuinely pluralistic political debate. Political discourse has the ability to shape collective emotions and perceptions and to influence how social groups are viewed, which may, in certain circumstances, generate discriminatory behaviour. Given their substantial influence, political actors therefore bear heightened responsibilities when engaging in public debate. When using new media for the political discourse these responsibilities should take the far-reaching, multiplying and non-reversible effect of the internet58 into account. The “Court has found that it is crucial for politicians, when expressing themselves in public, to avoid comments that might foster intolerance […], and that they should also be particularly careful to defend democracy and its principles, their ultimate aim being to govern […]. In particular, to foster the exclusion of foreigners constitutes a fundamental attack on individual rights, and everyone – politicians included – should exercise particular caution in discussing such matters […]. Consequently, remarks capable of arousing a feeling of rejection and hostility towards a community fall outside the protection guaranteed by Article 10.” The Court has recognised that politicians are subject to special “duties and responsibilities” under Article 10(2) ECHR, taking into account that messages by politicians can amplify the impact of the message and thus increase the risk of hateful consequences.