The exercise of the right to criticise and oppose migration and asylum policies is absolutely legitimate in the electoral context, in the broadest democratic spirit. However, communication dynamics can foster, through discriminatory representations, a potential risk of imbalance between the right of parties and candidates to communicate political agendas and the right of individuals targeted by the speech not to suffer discrimination, vilification or degradation, detrimental to their dignity. At the same time, these dynamics also affect voters and their ability to form an opinion freely on phenomena that are particularly felt but also structurally differentiated and complex, thus also affecting the integrity of the electoral process (Article 3 Protocol 1 ECHR). When it comes to matters of general interest, the state has a certain margin of appreciation to adopt measures that facilitate political debate in all aspects, and the expression of all points of view and exchanges, while ensuring protection of all groups and individuals from discrimination. Measures taken by the state should always respect the principle of proportionality. For example, broadly criminalising the dissemination of “false information” in electoral campaigns would go against the principle of proportionality, as there is a risk that governments may misuse such tools to silence their opponents or to suppress uncomfortable discussions on migration and asylum.