TFL Vsebine / Revija Javna uprava

Postalo je očitno, da Evropa potrebuje in si resnično želi svoj koncept sovražne- ga govora. Zato ga mora natančno dovolj opredeliti, ne samo v pravni teoriji, ampak tudi v sodni praksi ustavnih sodišč držav članic EU in Sveta Evrope. Konceptualno opredelitev mora razviti in ponuditi predvsem Evropsko sodišče za človekove pravice (ESČP). Sodba tega sodišča v zadevi Weideland proti Švedski iz leta 2012 je ponujala le opisne smernice za morebitno opredelitev sovražnega govora. Sodišče je poudarilo, da bi lahko »žaljive« in »sovražne pripombe« zakonsko prepovedali in kazensko preganjali, zlasti če bi take pripombe lahko pravno priznali in ocenili kot »zelo resne obtožbe na podlagi močnih in stvarno neutemeljenih predsodkov«. ESČP je sredi junija 2020 sprejelo končno sodbo v zadevi Carl Jóhann Lilliendahl proti Islandiji, ki obravnava homofobni sovražni govor. Čeprav je izrecno uporabilo izraz sovražni govor, pa ga še vedno ni opredelilo kot koncept. Avtor z upoštevanjem sodne prakse ESČP o svobodi izražanja v zadnjih petih do osmih letih poveže z razumevanjem tega pojma Evropske komisije in domnevno opredelitev, določeno v KZ-1. Ponudi alternativni predlog za skupno in celovito evropsko opredelitev sovražnega govora.

It became obvious that Europe needs, and really wants, its own hate speech concept. So, it needs to be defined—precisely enough. Not only in legal theory and in the case-law of the constitutional courts of the EU and Council of Eu- rope Member States. The definition must be developed and offered primarily by the ECtHR. Its judgement in Vejdeland vs. Sweden (2012) offered only a descriptive guidance for a possible definition of hate speech. It emphasised that “offensive” and “hostile tuned remarks” can be legally prohibited and criminally prosecuted, especially if such remarks can be legally recognised and evaluated as “very severe accusations based on strong and really unfounded prejudice.” In June 2020, the ECtHR passed its final judgement in Carl Jóhann Lilliendahl vs. Iceland addressing the homophobic hate speech. While the Court used the term hate speech, it still did not define such speech as a concept. Combining the ECtHR case-law on freedom of expression in the last eight to five years with understanding of this concept by the European Commission and with the supposed definition from the Slovenian Criminal Code, the author offers an alternative proposal for a common and comprehensive European definition of hate speech.

The Future of Public Communication: A Proposal on How Hate Speech could be Defined in Europe