Misrepresentation of the Efforts to Strengthen Hate Speech Criminalization

Photo: EyeEm, Freepik  On June 2, 2024, the web portal Nulta tacka published an article with the following title:

Imprisonment of those who dare to think – It is increasingly certain that the EU will make “hate speech” a serious crime

In the introduction, it was stated that the European Commission is preparing to criminalize hate speech as one of the most serious crimes.

It seems that the European Commission (EC) is preparing to include “hate speech” in the list of the most serious crimes and to regulate the investigation and prosecution in the entire bloc.

The idea of ​​criminalizing hate speech comes from the European Citizen Panel for Combating Hate in Society, the article states and adds that the term “hate speech” is not well defined in this context and that it could mean anything. The definition of hate speech allegedly highlighted in the report poses a problem for critics:

This is how the report phrased it: any speech that “conflicts with the values of human dignity, freedom, democracy, the rule of law, and respect for human rights” should be classified as “hate speech”.

The article was also shared on the Telegram channel of the same web portal.

Expanding the Definition of Hate Speech and Criminalization

Nulta tacka took the article from the web portal Reclaim the net. On May 30, this web portal published an article about the possibility of criminalizing hate speech in the European Union. The article, however, is not equipped with a headline about the criminalization of freedom of thought. The report on the Reclaim the net is based on the press release published on May 21 on the website of the European Commission (EC). The announcement was published due to the finalization of the report with recommendations sent to this institution by the European Citizens’ Panel on Tackling Hatred in Society. The formation and work of this panel are based on the EC’s earlier conclusions regarding the problem of hate speech. It was supposed to serve as a place that gathers citizens from all over the European Union to discuss the causes and drivers of hatred, as well as ways to solve this problem. In the end, 150 randomly selected citizens from 27 EU countries published a report with 21 recommendations. One of them (Recommendation 11 – One Europe, one definition: Criminalization of hate speech) indeed calls for the criminalization of hate speech and the expansion of the definition of illegal hate speech, which already exists in EU legislation.

We recommend that the European Commission form a diverse working group in order to update and expand the common definition of “illegal hate speech” and thus more efficiently criminalize its spread. The current definition, adopted in 2008, focuses on racism and xenophobia but excludes other forms of hatred, such as ableism [a form of discrimination or prejudice against people with disabilities] and discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender, age and other factors. This outdated term is in urgent need of revision to reflect the inclusive values ​​of our modern society.

The recommendation stated that this should ensure that “all forms of hate speech are equally recognized and punished” and that the inclusion of “hate speech on the list of criminal offenses in the EU could protect marginalized communities and preserve human dignity”. The report does not contain the “definition of hate speech” published by Nulta tacka, which is problematic for critics of the criminalization of hate speech due to its generality. A similar wording is actually found in the press release of the European Commission, but it is not described as a “definition of hate speech” – it is stated that all forms of hatred are contrary to the values ​​depicted in the current version of the Treaty on European Union as one of the fundamental international agreements on which the EU is based.

All forms of hatred and intolerance are incompatible with the values ​​of human dignity, freedom, democracy, rule of law and respect for human rights contained in the Treaty on European Union.

What was left out of the articles that dealt with the topic of the possible expansion of the definition of hate speech and its criminalization is a note from the report with recommendations in which it is emphasized that the initiative makes a distinction between “illegal hate speech” and freedom of expression:

This initiative distinguishes illegal hate speech from freedom of expression, ensuring that we strike a balance between fundamental rights and the need to fight discrimination and hatred.

Therefore, the initiative for the criminalization of hate speech in the European Union according to the still non-existent expanded definition exists in the form of a recommendation that was sent to the European Commission for consideration. The Panel’s recommendations will be considered by the College of Commissioners, and later an event will be held where EC representatives will inform the Panel about the way their recommendations were taken into account, the EC announcement stated. Actions and speech motivated by hatred to some extent are already illegal in the European Union. Namely, the Framework Decision on Suppressing Certain Forms of Expression of Racism and Xenophobia, adopted by the EU Council in 2008, requires member states to criminalize public incitement to violence or hatred based on race, skin colour, religion, and national or ethnic origin. The Framework Decision is a legally binding document of EU legislation equivalent to today’s directive.

A Delicate Balance: Navigating the Fight Against Hate Speech and the Preservation of Freedom of Expression”

The wording that suggests punishing opinions is similar to the argument that efforts to combat disinformation are often seen as attacks on freedom of speech and the right to express personal opinions and values. We wrote about a recent example of such manipulation, in which the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, was the focus, in an analysis that you can read at this link. Maintaining a balance between the fight against disinformation and the fight for freedom of expression is complicated, but also necessary for the preservation of democracy and the realization of fundamental rights. Similarly, the fight against hate speech requires a balance between limiting such speech and protecting freedom of expression, which, after all, was recognized in the report with the recommendations of the civil panel. Accordingly, we assess the claim that the initiative to expand the definition of illegal hate speech in the EU represents an attack on freedom of opinion as disinformation. (Author: Amar Karađuz, Raskrinkavanje.ba)