
<a href="https://reason.com/volokh/2025/07/14/natalie-alkiviadou-guest-blogging-about-hate-speech-and-the-european-court-of-human-rights/" target="_blank">View original image source</a>.
Dr. Natalie Alkiviadou is stirring the pot with her new book that challenges how the European Court of Human Rights handles hate speech. In a time when online speech seems to resemble the Wild West, her work argues that the court should step up its game to better protect freedom of expression. Drawing on the famous Handyside v the United Kingdom case, she insists that free speech includes not just the opinions we love but also those that might give us a headache.
Alkiviadou’s book provides a critical analysis of hate speech rulings, highlighting inconsistencies and a troubling tendency to ignore real-world evidence. Who knew that the very institutions meant to safeguard our rights might be holding us back instead? If the court continues to shun empirical evidence while setting speech standards, we might as well start taking notes on what not to do.
As the lines between hate speech and free expression blur, it’s worth asking: How do we strike that delicate balance between protecting speech and limiting harmful dialogue? It’s a tough question and there are no easy answers, but here’s hoping the court can rise to the occasion—or at least offer us some clarity amidst the chaos!
To get daily local headlines delivered to your inbox each morning, sign up for newsletter!