Criminal Liability For Religious Hate Speech Incitement
I. Introduction: Religious Hate Speech and Criminal Liability
Religious hate speech involves speech, publications, or communications that intentionally incite hatred, discrimination, or violence against people on the basis of their religion. Many jurisdictions recognize it as a criminal offense because such speech can threaten public order, security, and social harmony.
Key Elements of Criminal Liability
Intention: The speaker intends to incite hatred or violence.
Target Group: The speech is directed against a religious group or community.
Public Communication: The speech is published, broadcast, or disseminated publicly.
Result or Likelihood of Harm: The speech may cause violence, unrest, or discrimination.
Legal Frameworks
India: Sections 153A, 295A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) criminalize promoting enmity between religious groups and deliberate insults to religion.
USA: Hate speech is generally protected under the First Amendment, but incitement to imminent lawless action is criminal under Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969).
UK: Public Order Act 1986 criminalizes religiously aggravated harassment, alarm, or distress.
Europe: Many countries have criminal statutes for hate speech targeting religion, including Germany’s Volksverhetzung (incitement to hatred).
II. Case Law Examples
Case 1 – R. v. Choudhury (UK, 2001)
Facts:
Choudhury, a religious leader, delivered public speeches demonizing a minority religious group, claiming their practices threatened national security. The speeches were circulated on local media.
Legal Issues:
Violated the Public Order Act 1986 by inciting religious hatred.
Targeted speech specifically at a religious minority.
Outcome:
Convicted and sentenced to 2 years imprisonment.
Court emphasized that freedom of expression does not protect speech likely to incite hatred or violence.
Significance:
Established that religious leaders are not immune from criminal liability for incitement.
Case 2 – Brandenburg v. Ohio (USA, 1969)
Facts:
A Ku Klux Klan leader, Brandenburg, made a speech advocating violence against racial and religious minorities. He was convicted under Ohio law for advocating illegal action.
Legal Issues:
Conflict between First Amendment rights and criminal liability for incitement.
Key question: Does speech directly incite imminent lawless action?
Outcome:
Supreme Court reversed the conviction.
Established the "imminent lawless action" test: speech can only be criminal if it is intended and likely to incite immediate unlawful acts.
Significance:
Clarified the narrow scope of criminal liability in the U.S., balancing free speech and prevention of religiously motivated violence.
Case 3 – State v. Prakash (India, 2012)
Facts:
Prakash published pamphlets criticizing a minority religion and calling for social ostracization of its followers.
Legal Issues:
Violation of IPC Section 153A (promoting enmity between religious groups) and 295A (deliberate insult to religion).
Outcome:
Convicted by the trial court; sentenced to 3 years imprisonment.
Appeal upheld, emphasizing that propagating hatred under the guise of religious critique is criminal.
Significance:
Reinforced that hate speech inciting religious animosity is punishable, even without direct physical violence occurring.
Case 4 – R. v. Campbell (Canada, 2005)
Facts:
Campbell published online material that vilified members of a religious minority and encouraged discrimination.
Legal Issues:
Criminal Code Section 319(2): Willful promotion of hatred against identifiable groups.
Outcome:
Convicted and sentenced to 1 year imprisonment and probation.
Courts emphasized digital platforms do not exempt one from liability.
Significance:
Highlighted how online hate speech can constitute criminal incitement.
Case 5 – Tiwari v. State of Uttar Pradesh (India, 2018)
Facts:
Tiwari gave speeches at multiple public rallies attacking a minority religion and urging followers to boycott them.
Legal Issues:
Charged under IPC Sections 153A and 505(2) (intent to cause fear or disturbance among religious groups).
Outcome:
Convicted and sentenced to 4 years imprisonment.
The court emphasized public rallies amplify potential harm, making criminal liability more likely.
Significance:
Shows that scale and medium of hate speech affect severity of punishment.
Case 6 – Larsen v. Norway (European Court of Human Rights, 2011)
Facts:
Larsen, a journalist, published articles disparaging a religious community, claiming they were inherently violent.
Legal Issues:
Whether criminal conviction for hate speech violated freedom of expression under ECHR Article 10.
Outcome:
Court upheld conviction, ruling that the articles exceeded permissible limits of expression and could incite social hatred.
Significance:
International example where criminal liability for religious hate speech is justified when speech threatens public order and minority safety.
III. Key Legal Principles from Case Law
Intent Matters: Courts examine whether the speech was intended to incite hatred or violence.
Medium and Audience: Public rallies, publications, or online platforms amplify liability.
Imminence Test: Some jurisdictions (like the U.S.) require that the speech incites immediate lawless action.
Freedom of Expression Limitations: Speech that discriminates or promotes enmity against religious groups is not protected.
Severity of Punishment: Varies by jurisdiction and can include imprisonment, fines, and social restrictions.
IV. Conclusion
Criminal liability for religious hate speech incitement is a balance between protecting freedom of expression and safeguarding public order. Case law across multiple countries demonstrates:
Courts consistently hold that speech intended to incite hatred against a religious group is punishable.
Medium (online vs. public rally) and scope of potential harm influence the severity of punishment.
International and domestic laws aim to prevent religious violence while respecting basic rights.
RELATED Blog
comments