Hate Speech and Human Rights. Democracies need to understand these terms to properly adapt their legal frameworks. Regulation of hate speech exposes underlining and sometimes invisible societal values such as security and public order, equality and non-discrimination, human dignity, and other democratic vital interests. The spread of hatred and hate speech has intensified in many corners of the world over the last decade and its regulation presents a conundrum for many democracies. This book presents a three-prong theory describing three different but complementary models of hate speech regulation which allows stakeholders to better address this phenomenon. It examines international and national legal frameworks and related case law as well as pertinent scholarly literature review to highlight this development. After a period of an absence of free speech during communism, post-communist democracies have sought to build a framework for the exercise of free speech while protecting public goods such as liberty, equality and human dignity. The three-prong theory is applied to identify public goods and values underlining the regulation of hate speech in the Czech Republic and Slovakia, two countries that share a political, sociological, and legal history, as an example of the differing approaches to hate speech regulation in post-communist societies due to divergent social values, despite identical legal frameworks. This book will be of great interest to scholars of human rights law, lawyers, judges, government, NGOs, media and anyone who would like to understand values that underpin hate speech regulations which reflect values that society cherishes the most.

European Convention on Human Rights – Article 10 – Freedom of expression 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. In the context of an effective democracy and respect for human rights mentioned in the Preamble to the European Convention on Human Rights, freedom of expression is not only important in its own right, but it also plays a central part in the protection of other rights under the Convention. Without a broad guarantee of the right to freedom of expression protected by independent and impartial courts, there is no free country, there is no democracy. This general proposition is undeniable. This handbook is a practical tool for legal professionals from Council of Europe member states who wish to strengthen their skills in applying the European Convention on Human Rights and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights in their daily work.

This book focuses on regulatory challenges of creating and sustaining freedom of speech and freedom of information two decades after the fall of the Berlin wall, in global, comparative context. Some chapters overview, others address specific issues, or describe country case studies. Instead of trying to provide an exhaustive assessment which in one volume might not reach deeper analyzes of contextual details, this book will shed light on and help better understanding of general challenges for freedom of speech and information through varying comparative examples and highlighting important regulatory questions.

The contributors to this volume consider whether it is possible to establish carefully tailored hate speech policies that are cognizant of the varying traditions, histories and values of different countries. Throughout, there is a strong comparative emphasis, with examples (and authors) drawn from around the world. All the authors explore whether or when different cultural and historical settings justify different substantive rules given that such cultural relativism can be used to justify content-based restrictions and so endanger freedom of expression. Essays address the following questions, among others: is hate speech in fact so dangerous or harmful to vulnerable minorities or communities as to justify a lower standard of constitutional protection? What harms and benefits accrue from laws that criminalize hate speech in particular contexts? Are there circumstances in which everyone would agree that hate speech should be criminally punished? What lessons can be learned from international case law?

The right to freedom of expression entails duties and responsibilities and is subject to certain limits, provided for in Article 10.2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which are concerned, among other things, with protecting the rights of others. Identifying what constitutes "hate speech" is especially difficult because this type of speech does not necessarily involve the expression of hatred or feelings.On the basis of all the applicable texts on freedom of expression and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights and other bodies, the author identifies certain parameters that make it possible to distinguish expressions which, although sometimes insulting, are fully protected by the right to freedom of expression from those which do not enjoy that protection.

The opportunities afforded by the Internet greatly overshadow the challenges. While not forgetting this, we can nevertheless still address some of the problems that arise. Hate speech online is one such problem. But what exactly is hate speech online, and how can we deal with it effectively? As with freedom of expression, on- or offline, UNESCO defends the position that the free flow of information should always be the norm. Counter-speech is generally preferable to suppression of speech. And any response that limits speech needs to be very carefully weighed to ensure that this remains wholly exceptional, and that legitimate robust debate is not curtailed.

This edited collection provides a timely review of the current state of hate speech research in Asia and Europe, through the comparative examples of Korea, Japan and France. Extending the study of hate speech studies beyond the largely western emphasis on European and US contexts dominant in the field, this book’s comparative framework aims to examine hate speech as a global phenomenon spanning Asian and European contexts. An innovative range of nuanced empirical case studies explore hate speech by analyzing gendered hate speech and nationality, French cartoon humour, official counter radicalization narratives and the use of international law to inform domestic legislation in the Philippines and Japan. A fresh perspective on Asian and European hate speech, this book’s evaluation of current of hate speech research also identifies future directions for the development of theory and method. Filling a critical gap in the literature, Hate Speech in Asia and Europe will appeal to students and scholars of law, politics, religion, history, social policy and social science more broadly, as well as Asian Studies.