Natalie Alkiviadou urges a rethink on hate speech laws in Europe
- Natalie Alkiviadou critiques the European Court of Human Rights' current handling of hate speech cases.
- Her book emphasizes the need for a more robust protection of free expression amidst contradictory case law.
- The author argues that maintaining the right to offend is fundamental to freedom of speech in democratic societies.
In recent discussions surrounding free speech and hate speech legislation, Natalie Alkiviadou, Senior Research Fellow at Vanderbilt University, has made significant contributions to the discourse with her new book. This publication argues for a re-evaluation of the European Court of Human Rights' (ECtHR) handling of hate speech cases. Alkiviadou suggests that the Court should adopt a more protective stance on freedom of expression, especially in light of the precedents set in landmark cases such as Handyside v the United Kingdom, where freedom of expression is acknowledged for speech that may be offensive or disturbing. However, the current trajectory of the Court, which appears to follow a low-threshold hatred paradigm, raises concerns as it allows for restrictions even on mere insults without clear incitement to violence or hatred. Such a path threatens to undermine democratic discourse and stifles dissent. The book includes a detailed analysis of inconsistent case law and urges the ECtHR to rely on empirical evidence and clearly defined concepts when deliberating on hate speech. Furthermore, it highlights the potential dangers of legal restrictions on speech, which can engender distrust in democratic institutions and open avenues for selective enforcement. In sharing her insights, Alkiviadou aims to shed light on how various international and regional bodies' vague definitions of hate speech continue to influence the Court's decisions, complicating the legal landscape of free speech in Europe. She calls for a recalibration of the ECtHR's approach to ensure that the fundamental principles of free expression are maintained, encouraging a discourse that allows for dissenting opinions, however offensive they may appear. By fostering a greater understanding of hate speech dynamics and the empirical research behind them, Alkiviadou advocates for a balanced approach that weighs the complexities of free speech, societal harm, and the implications of criminalization and censorship.