In sum, the assessment of limits to freedom of expression under the Convention calls for a careful and context-sensitive evaluation. Democratic pluralism requires that the electoral debate remains free, open and robust, allowing political actors and the media to advance divergent, critical or even harsh views on migration and asylum related public policies. At the same time, the Convention framework recognises that certain forms of expression, may fall outside the scope of protected political debate, for example where they seriously affect the dignity or rights of migrants, asylum seekers or refugees, as individuals or groups, or undermine the values on which the Convention system is based. In specific situations, the state may be under the positive obligation to take protective measures to ban discriminatory statements, in other circumstances it may enjoy a certain margin of appreciation, in a logic of reasoned balancing of potentially conflicting rights and in conformity with the principle of proportionality. In all circumstances, hate speech must be prohibited. This applies in particular to speech on migration and asylum policies and, of course, to electoral campaigns, which are at the core of the democratic process and of the exercise of freedom of expression, while being submitted to specific rules.