On trial again for sharing her worldview on Twitter

‘Hate Speech’ is a term with no clear definition. While most will be familiar with the term ‘hate speech’, it is not used by any of the major international human rights treaties, and it has not been clearly defined by the European Court of Human Rights or any other international court.

National governments, technology companies, and international agencies use the term ‘hate speech’ in different ways in different documents. It is widely accepted that there is no universally agreed definition of ‘hate speech’ and most attempts rely on vaguely defined terms and subjectivity. Dangerously Ambiguous Laws Hundreds of draconian criminal speech laws exist on the statute books in Europe. In Austria, ‘insulting or belittling with the intent to violate the human dignity of others carries a two-year prison sentence.

In Greece, ‘insulting God in public’ carries a two-year prison sentence, and in Denmark, insulting the flag of the United Nations carries the same sentence. In Hungary, the State itself can be the victim of ‘hate speech’: inciting hatred against the Hungarian nation potentially carries a three-year prison sentence.

Similar laws exist across Europe, with enforcement focused on those who do not share the State’s views on certain politically charged topics. Consequently, in twenty-first-century Europe, public – and sometimes, even private – discussions on abortion, immigration, Islam, marriage and same sex relationships are high risk.

‘Hate speech’ laws hurt democracy because ‘hate speech’ laws rely so heavily on subjective and unclear terms (such as ‘insult’, ‘belittle’, and ‘offend.’) They are inconsistently interpreted and arbitrarily enforced. Generally, ‘hate speech’ is considered hateful by reference to the hearer, making it subjective and often with no or little regard for the content of the speech itself.

Because of the vague and subjective nature of these allegations, the authorities necessarily have to select which prosecutions to pursue.

This generally results in the targeting of minority groups or opinions by those who disagree. In some cases, even the fact that what was spoken is demonstrably truthful is no defence. It is not just spoken speech which has attracted the attention of censors, but also activity online. Internet giants including Facebook, Twitter, Google and Microsoft have partnered with the European Commission to actively remove ‘hate speech’ online.

In practice, this has led to significant censorship on internet platforms, with very little insight into how each decision to remove user content is made, or how such decisions can be appealed.

Freedom of expression is undoubtedly one of the most fundamental freedoms and features prominently in all major human rights treaties and national constitutions the world over.

Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees that everyone has the right to freedom of expression, and in the landmark case of Handyside v. United Kingdom, 6 the European Court of Human Rights recognized that: Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of [democratic] society, one of the basic conditions for its progress and for the development of every man … it is applicable not only to ‘information’ or ‘ideas’ that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population.

Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no ‘democratic society’. The European Court has further stressed that States are under a positive obligation to create a favourable environment for participation in public debate by all persons concerned, enabling them to express their opinions and ideas without fear. speak freely.

‘Hate speech’ laws shrink the boundaries of free speech and create a chilling effect on a variety of important conversations. Given the vague nature of ‘hate speech’, citizens look to avoid engaging in sensitive or potentially offensive topics for fear that this might be qualified as ‘hate speech’ and lead to a criminal investigation.

These ‘hate speech’ laws can ruin the reputation and livelihoods of individuals, even when they ultimately do not result in a prosecution. In this sense, the process becomes the punishment and others are deterred from making similar statements in the future.