The Appearance of the Clear and Present Danger Doctrine In Hungarian Hate Speech Laws and the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrrs Koltay
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Hate Speech ◽  
European Court ◽  
Clear And Present Danger

7. Freedom of religion and expression

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernadette Rainey
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Hate Speech ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Freedom Of Religion ◽  
Essential Information ◽  
European Court ◽  
State Restriction ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Right

Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. This chapter focuses on freedom of religion and freedom of expression, which are classified as qualified rights, and examines Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which explains the right to hold or not hold a belief as well as the right to manifest a belief. It also considers how the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) decides if there has been manifestation of belief, interpretation of Article 10 with respect to views that shock and disturb and some forms of hate speech, and state restriction of expression. The chapter concludes with a discussion of freedom of religion and expression in the UK.

Jurisprudence of Tolerance: Hate Speech, Article 17 and Theory of Democracy in the European Convention on Human Rights

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-88
Author(s):  
Majid Nikouei ◽  
Masoud Zamani
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Hate Speech ◽  
Political Power ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Half Century ◽  
European Court ◽  
Specific Direction ◽  
Theory Of Democracy ◽  
Tripartite Relationship

What does the protection or prohibition of a speech tell us about the tripartite relationship between political power, democracy and rights? This question has somehow underscored the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights in hate speech cases for more than a half century. We argue that this question has invariably placed the Court in an uneasy position, which is, choosing between a democracy empowered by unlimited freedom of speech, but with recurrent social tensions, and a democracy with rather strict hate speech laws, but at ease with different segments of population. That said, the jurisprudence of the European Court outlines a pattern by which to identify a specific direction for the evolution of rights and democracy. This article considers this pattern. Not only does this article, examine the pattern in the Court’s and the Commission’s jurisprudence, but it also argues that this pattern unfolds a subtle presence of Hobbesian and Lockean theories of political power and the limits in its midst. By invoking this presence, we indicate how the debate in the jurisprudence of the European Court has shifted from the language of protecting democracy to that of rights.

scholarly journals Freedom of expression and reputation protection in the European Court of Human Rights practice.

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 39-44
Author(s):  
Andriy Kuchuk
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Hate Speech ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Private Life ◽  
Clear Understanding ◽  
Human Rights Practice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Right

The article is devoted to the issue of understanding freedom of expression and reputation protection by the European Court of Human Rights. New opportunities to exercise the right to freedom of expression arise and opportunities to implement the right to freedom of expression as well as the possibilities for defamation increase within a democratic and information society. It is emphasized that within a law-based state guarantees provided to the press are of particular importance, as the media should disseminate information and ideas of public interest, and the public has the right to receive such information and ideas. A clear understanding of the content of the right to freedom of expression and the right to reputation protection is the basis for resolving the issue of finding a balance between them, which designates the relevance of the study. The paper elucidates the results of the European Court of Human Rights decisions analysis under Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the right to privacy and the right to freedom of expression). Emphasis is placed on the various features of these rights and the peculiarities of their implementation in different circumstances. It is pointed out that the domestic judicial system actively uses the European Court of Human Rights practice in resolving cases related to reputation protection. Attention is placed on the fact that freedom of expression does not extend to hate speech. The spread of the right to reputation protection as for defamation of family members and relatives is analyzed. Emphasis is placed on the dynamic approach of the European Court of Human Rights towards the interpretation of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Even before the beginning of 2000, the European Court of Human Rights noted that the protection of reputation does not fall under the protection of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The study describes the genesis of the positions of the European Court of Human Rights on a person’s reputation protection. It is stated that a person’s right to protection of his or her reputation is covered by Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as part of the right to respect for private life (provided that causing considerable damage to reputation if it affects a person’s private life).

scholarly journals Hate Crimes: Evaluation of Lithuanian Courts’ Decisions in the Light of the Practice of the European Court of Human Rights

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 22-47
Author(s):  
Mindaugas Bilius ◽  
Žaneta Navickienė ◽  
Vilius Velička
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Hate Crime ◽  
Hate Speech ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
National Courts ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Special Knowledge ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Definition Of

Abstract In this article, the authors analyse the practice of the Lithuanian national courts and the European Court of Human Rights in hate crime cases, provide insights into the synergy between the decisions made by these courts, and suggest further improvement actions. This research shows that proving the circumstances surrounding various forms of hatred is quite complex, often lacking a more comprehensive, in-depth definition of the totality of circumstances by taking account of the need for special knowledge, the identification of guilt, and the system and intensity of actions. There is often a divide between criminal liability and the possibility of other countermeasures, especially when examining cases related to hate speech. Court decisions draw attention to the fact that it is necessary to consider the totality of the data collected, not individual data or individual fragments of circumstances. Among other things, the decisions emphasize the ultima ratio principle: whether criminal liability is an adequate measure in cases of hate speech. The topical issues examined in the article draw attention to the collection of significant data and the organization of investigations of these crimes, issues relating to proof and the emerging practice of the European Court of Human Rights and the Supreme Court of the Republic of Lithuania in this category of cases, highlighting the two main problematic aspects: first, the determination of the totality of objective and subjective features and second, the fact of identifying a real threat.

The concept of hate speech - a comparative analysis of the approaches of the Council of Europe and the European Court of Human Rights

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 37-42
Author(s):  
Gülnaz Rəfail qızı Ələsgərova ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Key Words ◽  
Hate Speech ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Clear Distinction ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
European Court ◽  
Exhaustive List

Providing an opportunity for society to develop and progress, freedom of speech is surely one of the vital conditions for sustainable democracy. Nevertheless, freedom of speech is not an absolute right and exhaustive list of limitations are delineated by many jurisdictions. In Europe as well it is still subject to accepted restrictions designed to prohibit incitement to hatred or conflict with other human rights. This article discusses approaches to hate speech as a legitimate ground for restriction of freedom of speech. The article is dedicated to a comparative analysis of the case law of the ECHR and the provisions of the Recommendations adopted in the framework of the Council of Europe. In particular, the author tries to find a clear distinction between speech that is not welcome by the majority of society and the prohibition of hate speech. Key words: freedom of speech, hate speech, standards of Council of Europe, European Court on Human Rights, context of speech, call for violence

Combating Religious Hate Speech: Lessons Learned from Five Years of Country-Monitoring by the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ecri)

2014 ◽  
Vol 9 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 139-150 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanos Stavros
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Hate Speech ◽  
Self Regulation ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
European Court ◽  
Monitoring Mechanism ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms

European governments that have to react to religious hate speech can turn for guidance to ecri—the Council-of-Europe specialized monitoring-mechanism on racism and intolerance. They can be advised on how to use a variety of tools: criminal, administrative and civil law, self-regulation, prevention and, quite significantly, more speech. ecri’s protection complements that afforded by the European Court of Human Rights. The combination of judicial and non-judicial responses proposed by the Council of Europe can ensure that the fight against religious hatred does not entail unnecessary restrictions to fundamental freedoms.

The Relationship between Hate Propaganda and Incitement to Genocide: A New Trend in International Law Towards Criminalization of Hate Propaganda?

2005 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 257-282 ◽  
Author(s):  
WIBKE KRISTIN TIMMERMANN
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Hate Speech ◽  
International Crime ◽  
Genocide Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
Military Tribunal ◽  
The Status ◽  
The One ◽  
Interpretative Approach ◽  
The Right

This article focuses on the development of the crime of incitement to genocide and the prohibition of hate propaganda. It first examines the conflict which exists between these and the right to freedom of speech and concludes that a limitation of this right through prohibition of hate propaganda and criminalization of incitement to genocide is justifiable. The article then analyses how the crime of incitement to genocide and the prohibition of hate propaganda first developed historically, focusing on judgments by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg and the Genocide Convention, on the one hand, and on international conventions and case law by the Human Rights Committee and the European Court of Human Rights, on the other. Next, recent ICTR decisions are examined, in which the ICTR has considerably clarified and extended the concept of incitement to genocide. The tribunal has brought it closer to encompassing vicious hate propaganda by acknowledging that in order to incite individuals to commit genocide, incitement in the sense of instigation is insufficient; it requires the prior creation of a certain climate in which the commission of such crimes is possible. Hate propaganda leads to the creation of such a climate. It is argued that, for several reasons, virulent hate propaganda must be accorded the status of an international crime. Genocide could be prevented more effectively if such speech were criminalized. Several efforts to outlaw hate propaganda internationally in the past are examined. The article concludes that it can be regarded as a crime punishable under the Genocide Convention if a purposive interpretative approach is used, and that hate propagandists should be prosecuted for direct and public incitement to genocide if their hate speech is engaged in with the specific intent to commit genocide, and creates a substantial danger of genocide.

DANGEROUS EXPRESSIONS: THE ECHR, VIOLENCE AND FREE SPEECH

2014 ◽  
Vol 63 (2) ◽  
pp. 491-503 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antoine Buyse
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Hate Speech ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Grey Zone ◽  
Prevention Of Violence ◽  
European Court

AbstractHow should one balance the freedom of expression and the prevention of violence? This article delves into the grey zone between hate speech and incitement to violence by assessing the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights in cases of allegedly dangerous speech. Rather than labelling this case law as simplistic, as some critics even within the Court have done, it is shown that the jurisprudence reveals cleavages within the Court on whether to adopt a more or less consequentialist approach on the links between speech and violence. Freedom of expression cases should preferably be assessed on the merits under Article 10 ECHR since this allows for a balancing of the various interests involved. The application of the abuse of rights clause of Article 17 ECHR is for that very reason undesirable, in addition to its inconsistent use by the Court.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document