Criminalisation Of Hate Speech Versus Freedom Of Expression
Hate Speech vs Freedom of Expression: Overview
Hate Speech:
Generally defined as public expressions that incite discrimination, hostility, or violence against individuals or groups based on race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or other protected characteristics.
Can include written, spoken, or online statements.
Freedom of Expression:
Protected under instruments like:
Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)
Includes the right to hold opinions, impart information, and express ideas without interference.
Legal Tension:
Hate speech laws aim to prevent harm and protect vulnerable groups.
Freedom of expression ensures open debate and democratic discourse.
Courts often weigh:
Intent and context of the speech
Likelihood of harm or incitement to violence
Public interest in protecting expression
Typical Provisions:
Criminal Code provisions in various countries criminalize:
Incitement to violence or hatred
Defamation against protected groups
Holocaust denial or glorification of crimes against humanity (in some jurisdictions)
Key Cases
1. Jersild v. Denmark (ECtHR, 1994)
Facts:
Danish journalist Flemming Jersild broadcast a program featuring racist statements by a youth gang.
He was convicted for aiding and abetting hate speech under Danish law.
Legal Issues:
Did his conviction violate Article 10 ECHR (freedom of expression)?
Decision:
ECtHR acknowledged that freedom of expression is not absolute.
Conviction upheld because the journalist failed to sufficiently distance himself from racist statements, which could incite hatred.
Outcome:
Reinforced that media professionals can be held liable if they facilitate hate speech without counterbalance.
Significance:
Clarifies limits of freedom of expression when speech may incite hatred.
2. R v. Lemon (UK, 1979)
Facts:
James Lemon published articles and speeches inciting racial hatred against black and Asian communities in the UK.
Legal Issues:
Charged under Public Order Act 1936 (predecessor to modern hate speech laws).
Decision:
Court found that speech intended to stir up racial hatred fell outside the protection of free speech.
Outcome:
Convicted; sentenced to imprisonment.
Significance:
Early precedent showing UK courts limit freedom of expression when it threatens public order or targets racial groups.
3. Glimmerveen v. Netherlands (European Commission of Human Rights, 1985)
Facts:
Dutch neo-Nazi party leaders held rallies using racist slogans.
Charged under Dutch law for incitement to racial hatred.
Legal Issues:
Whether criminalization violated freedom of political expression.
Decision:
Court held that criminalization was justified: preventing harm to targeted racial groups outweighed abstract political expression rights.
Outcome:
Conviction upheld.
Significance:
Confirms that hate speech laws can limit extremist political expression when it threatens social order.
4. Norwood v. UK (ECtHR, 1999)
Facts:
Norwood published materials denying the Holocaust and inciting racial hatred.
Convicted under UK Public Order Act 1986.
Legal Issues:
Challenge claimed violation of Article 10 ECHR.
Decision:
Court found conviction compatible with freedom of expression, because the speech went beyond mere opinion and constituted incitement to hatred.
Outcome:
Conviction upheld; demonstrates proportionality between protecting groups and freedom of expression.
Significance:
Holocaust denial and incitement to hatred can be criminalized without violating human rights law.
5. Vejdeland v. Sweden (ECtHR, 2012)
Facts:
High school students distributed anti-LGBT leaflets in Sweden.
Convicted under Swedish law for hate speech.
Legal Issues:
Whether criminalization violated freedom of expression rights of students.
Decision:
ECtHR found convictions justified: speech targeted a vulnerable minority and risked social harm.
Outcome:
Upholds proportionality: protecting vulnerable groups justifies limits on expression.
Significance:
Shows that hate speech protections extend to sexual orientation.
6. Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary (ECtHR, 2016)
Facts:
Hungarian authorities refused to investigate online comments inciting hatred against Roma.
Legal Issues:
Whether state’s failure to act violated Article 8 (private life) and 14 (anti-discrimination) in combination with Article 2 of Protocol 1 ECHR.
Decision:
Court emphasized positive obligations of states to protect vulnerable groups from hate speech.
Outcome:
State found in breach; required to investigate and prosecute hate speech.
Significance:
Highlights that criminalization alone is insufficient; states must enforce laws to protect minorities.
7. Finnish Supreme Court – KKO 2010:94
Facts:
Individual posted anti-immigrant statements online in Finland.
Charged under Finnish Criminal Code for incitement to hatred.
Legal Issues:
Whether online speech falls within free expression protections.
Decision:
Court ruled that online dissemination with intent to incite hatred against an ethnic group qualifies as hate speech.
Freedom of expression is limited when it threatens safety or dignity of minorities.
Outcome:
Convicted; sentence included fines.
Significance:
Confirms applicability of hate speech laws to digital platforms and the proportionality test applied by Finnish courts.
Key Principles from Hate Speech Cases
Freedom of expression is not absolute – it can be restricted to protect others from harm.
Intent and context matter – deliberate incitement of hatred is criminalizable.
Vulnerability of the target group influences proportionality.
Medium of communication – print, speech, and online platforms can all be regulated.
State obligations – countries must not only criminalize hate speech but also actively enforce protections.
International human rights frameworks – ECHR and ICCPR guide proportional limitations on expression.
These seven cases illustrate the balance:
ECtHR jurisprudence: Jersild, Norwood, Vejdeland, Magyar Helsinki
National courts: UK (Lemon), Netherlands (Glimmerveen), Finland (KKO 2010:94)
Key principle: freedom of expression is fundamental, but cannot justify incitement to hatred or discrimination.
RELATED Blog
comments