Hate Speech

Shaheen Abdullah v Union of India

Savva Terentyev v. Russia

The ECHR( European Court of Human Rights) has applied a very high level of free speech-protection for aggressively insulting and hostile comments about police officers, published on a weblog. The ECHR observes that some of the wordings in the blog post was offensive, insulting and virulent, but, In contrast with the findings by the Russian authorities, the ECHR is of the opinion that Terentyev’s blog did not pose “a clear and imminent danger” and could not be seen as stirring up “base emotions or embedded prejudices” attempting to incite hatred or violence against Russian police officers. Jersild v. Denmark , The journalist, had made a documentary containing extracts from a television interview he had conducted with three members of a group of young people calling themselves the “Greenjackets”, who had made abusive and derogatory remarks about immigrants and ethnic groups in Denmark. The applicant was convicted of aiding and abetting the dissemination of racist remarks. He alleged a breach of his right to freedom of expression.  The Court drew a distinction between the members of the “Greenjackets”, who had made openly racist remarks, and the applicant, who had sought to expose, analyse and explain this particular group of youths and to deal with “specific aspects of a matter that already then was of great public concern”. The documentary as a whole had not been aimed at propagating racist views and ideas, but at informing the public about a social issue. Accordingly, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the Convention.

Beizaras and Levickas v. Lithuania

one of the applicants posted a photograph of him kissing his male partner on his Facebook page, which led to hundreds of online hate comments. The applicants alleged that they had been discriminated against on the ground of sexual orientation. They also argued that the Lithuanian authorities’ refusal to launch a pre-trial investigation had left them without the possibility of legal redress. In a unanimous judgement, the Court found violation of Article 14 – prohibition of discrimination, of the European Convention on Human Rights, taken in conjunction with Article 8 -right to respect for private and family life, and Article 13- right to an effective remedy.

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.

Sign Up For News Updates / Enquiries and Registrations

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Sign Up For News Updates/Enquiries and Registrations