Het EHRM haalt ter introductie twee standaard arresten aan die in grote lijnen de grenzen aangeven:
“Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of [a democratic] society, one of the basic conditions for its progress and for the development of every man. Subject to paragraph 2 of Article 10 [of the European Convention on Human Rights], it is applicable not only to ‘information’ or ‘ideas’ that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population. Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no ‘democratic society’. This means, amongst other things, that every ‘formality’, ‘condition’, ‘restriction’ or ‘penalty’ imposed in this sphere must be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.” (Handyside v. the United Kingdom judgment of 7 December 1976, § 49).
“… [T]olerance and respect for the equal dignity of all human beings constitute the foundations of a democratic, pluralistic society. That being so, as a matter of principle it may be considered necessary in certain democratic societies to sanction or even prevent all forms of expression which spread, incite, promote or justify hatred based on intolerance …, provided that any ‘formalities’, ‘conditions’, ‘restrictions’ or ‘penalties’ imposed are proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.” (Erbakan v. Turkey judgment of 6 July 2006, § 56).
Het document bevat samenvattingen van, en links naar, de volgende jurisprudentie:
- Pavel Ivanov v. Russia
- Garaudy v. France
- M’Bala M’Bala v. France
- Glimmerveen and Hagenbeek v. the Netherlands
- Norwood v. the United Kingdom
- Sürek (no.1) v. Turkey
- Gündüz v. Turkey
- Faruk Temel v. Turkey
- Vejdeland and Others v. Sweden
- Leroy v. France
- Lehideux and Isorni v. France
- Dink v. Turkey
- Fáber v. Hungary
- Balsytė-Lideikienė v. Lithuania
- Hösl-Daum and Others v. Poland
- Jersild v. Denmark
- Soulas and Others v. France
- Féret v. Belgium
- Le Pen v. France
- Perinçek v. Switzerland
- İ.A. v. Turkey
- Erbakan v. Turkey
- Otegi Mondragon v. Spain
- Delfi AS v. Estonia
- Magyar Tartalomszolgáltatók Egyesülete and Index.hu Zrt v. Hungary
Texts and documents:
- Recommendation No. R 97(20) of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to Member States on “hate speech”, 30 October 1997;
- General Policy Recommendation No. 7 of the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) on national legislation to combat racism and racial discrimination, 13 December 2002;
- Recommendation 1805 (2007) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on “blasphemy, religious insults and hate speech against persons on grounds of their religion”, 29 June 2007;
- Study no. 406/2006 of the Venice Commission, “Report on the relationship between freedom of expression and freedom of religion: the issue of regulation and prosecution of blasphemy, religious insult and incitement to religious hatred”;
- Manual on hate speech, Strasbourg, Council of Europe Publishing, 2009;
- Issue discussion paper by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights on “Ethical journalism and human rights”, doc. CommDH (2011)40, 8 November 2011;
- Website of the Conference on “Tackling hate speech: Living together online” organized by the Council of Europe in Budapest in November 2012;- Website of the Conference “The hate factor in political speech – Where do responsibilities lie?” organized by the Council of Europe in Warsaw in September 2013.
- Website of the Conference “Freedom of expression: still a precondition for democracy” organized by the Council of Europe in Strasbourg in October 2015.
- General Policy Recommendation No. 15 of the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) on combating hate speech, adopted on 8 December 2015.