Hate Speech vs. Free Speech: Is the ECtHR Losing Its Mind?

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is diving headfirst into the complex and murky waters of hate speech regulations, and the results are…well, a bit of a mixed bag. A new book critiques the court’s expansive approach, claiming it’s often too lenient on certain forms of hate speech while being excessively strict on others. This puzzling inconsistency has become the new normal in what some are calling a troubling trend for democracy in Europe. If you thought politics was a circus, this is one show you won’t want to miss!

One glaring example discussed is the case of Féret v Belgium, where the court essentially decided that throwing around insults during an election campaign is worthy of restrictions. Meanwhile, when Turkish politician Doğu Perinçek denied the Armenian genocide, the court took a softer stance, which raises eyebrows. You can’t help but wonder—how does the ECtHR decide what’s harmful speech and what’s not? Watching them navigate these cases is like watching a toddler try to thread a needle—painfully entertaining with a hint of confusion.

The rise of digital platforms only complicates the scene further, as the court is now holding social media posts to a similar standard. Ever heard of ‘hate speech by proxy’? Sounds ominous, doesn’t it? Cases like those involving online comments remind us that the landscape of free speech is changing—and not without its complications. So, will the ECtHR be able to right its ship, or are we just getting started on a wild legal rollercoaster?

At the end of the day, are we witnessing a decline in genuine free speech protections or just a rebranding of what those protections look like? Let’s chat about this. Do you think there can be an effective way to balance protecting speech while combating hate?

About the Author

View All Posts