Neapykantos kalbos: saviraiškos laisvės ribų beieškant

LTReikšminiai žodžiai: Europos Žmogaus Teisių Teismas (European Court of Human Rights); Neapykantos kalba; Saviraiškos laisvė, neapykantos kalbos, tarptautinė teisė, nacionalinė teisė; Tarptautinės organizacijos; European Court of Human Rights; Freedom of expression, hate speech, international law, national law; Hate speach; International organisations.

ENThe author searches for the limit where the exercise of the freedom of expression becomes a hate speech. Analysis of legal acts of international organisations, their implementation practice and application, and a short overview of hate speech regulation in the law of European countries serve for this aim; however, the main sources for finding the answer remain the legal instruments of the Council of Europe and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. On the basis thereof the term 'hate speech' shall be understood as covering all forms of expression which spread, incite, promote or justify racial hatred, xenophobia, anti-Semitism or other forms of hatred based on intolerance, including: intolerance expressed by aggressive nationalism and ethnocentrism, discrimination and hostility against minorities, migrants and people of immigrant origin. Such acts of hatred cause the need to apply restrictions upon the freedom of expression on the grounds which have become European standards, such as democracy, interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, crime prevention, protection of health or morals, the reputation or rights of others, etc. Despite the definition and the growing case law, it remains difficult to identify the extent where the freedom of expression is exceeded, and for this purpose not only a particular wording of the statement, but also the context, linguistic expression, addressee, harm to public society and all other circumstances are relevant. Not only oral and written statements may constitute a hate speech, but also other forms of expression, such as cartoons, posters, leaflets, drawings, etc. In evaluating them it is important to make a distinction between, on the one hand, genuine and serious incitement to extremism and, on the other hand, the right of individuals (including journalists and politicians) to express their views freely and to offend, shock or disturb.In addition, it is relevant to make difference between value judgements and facts; writers and publishing companies must carefully follow the methods of historical scientific research, and a particular genre of art does not itself make the author safe from responsibility. The author finds that most hate speech offences in European countries are similar (incitement to hatred, violence or discrimination; negation of genocide and crimes against humanity); still, some scope for differences remains (e.g. the features of a group of people as grounds for hate (disability, social status or political views are quite rare); the negation of the crimes committed by all totalitarian regimes (Nazi, Soviet) is not always equally criminalised; insult towards religion is also not widely established as an offence). The article identifies that due to all relevant circumstances of a particular case the European Court of Human Rights has recognised certain forms of expression as a hate speech even in absence of a direct incitement to hatred or violence; and Lithuanian courts find ä person guilty only after proving his/her direct incitement or other active invitation to hatred or violence. Although this is due to a particular corpus delicti of incitement to hatred in Lithuanian criminal law and the case law in the field is not rich, the author emphasises the importance for all national courts to follow and keep in line with the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, especially identifying the forms of indirect incitement to hatred.However, the author suggests that by criminalising certain offences, ensuring the main and primary responsibility for a hate speech of its author and separating it from other persons' liability (such as of the editors or owners of the mass media) and by other means Lithuania duly implements the European standards in the field of fighting a hate speech. It is concluded that due to miscellaneous reasons of hate crimes ranging from cultural differences to ideological reasons the line between the hate speech and the freedom of expression will be further modified together with the changing States and societies and the success of finding a consensus an^J a right balance of rights in this multicultural world. [From the publication]

• Teisė / Law
• Komunikacija / Communication