Government & Politics
Hate Speech and the European Court of Human Rights
What is the appropriate treatment of hate speech in European human rights law? In this event, Dr Natalie Alkiviadou (Future of Free Speech at Vanderbilt University) will present her argument that the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) should fundamentally rethink its approach to hate speech cases, in order to strengthen freedom of expression. After setting out her argument, Dr Alkiviadou will critical engage a panel of leading experts on free speech and human rights law: Dr Joan Barata (Católica Porto Law School/Queen Mary Univ. of London), Prof. Veronika Fikfak (UCL), and Prof. Eric Heinze (Queen Mary Unive. of London). The session will be introduced by Prof. Jeffrey Howard (UCL) and chaired by Ricki-Lee Gerbandt (Cambridge/UCL).
The panel will be followed by an audience Q&A. Please join us to discuss one of the most pressing issues of our time.
A drinks reception will follow, sponsored by the UCL Digital Speech Lab
More Information
This event is inspired by Dr Alkiviadou's recent book Hate Speech and the European Court of Human Rights. The book explores the robust protection of freedom of expression set out in the benchmark case of Handyside v the United Kingdom. In that case, the ECtHR determined that Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), safeguarding the right to freedom of expression, extends protection not only to opinions which are well received but also to those deemed offensive, shocking, or disturbing. However, subsequent rulings by the Court have generated a significant amount of contradictory case law. Against this backdrop, this book provides an analysis of hate speech case law before the ECtHR and the now-obsolete European Commission on Human Rights. The book argues that these institutions have adopted an overly restrictive approach to hate speech, which fails to provide adequate protection of the right to freedom of expression. It also demonstrates that there are stark inconsistencies when it comes to the treatment of some forms of ‘hate speech’ versus others. The book further contends that, in reaching its decisions on hate speech cases, the Court disregards empirical evidence on matters related to free speech restrictions. Viewing the ECHR as a ‘living instrument,’ the book places this analysis within the current state of affairs vis-à-vis the handling of hate speech, particularly online, by European countries, the European Union itself and social media platforms, actions which the author argues are contributing to a free speech demise.
