Hate speech and the freedom of expression : is the legislation of the high contracting parties in line with ECHR principles?

Abstract

This thesis assesses whether the hate speech legislation of some of the High Contracting Parties to the European Convention on Human Rights, namely the UK, France, and Malta, is in line with that Convention as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights. It provides a background to the right to freedom of expression as well as hate speech, and argues that in the absence of a universal definition of hate speech and an exhaustive binding instrument on hate speech legislation, the European Court of Human Right’s judgments are the best guide for the State Parties in bringing their domestic frameworks in line with the Convention. Following an examination of the main case law of the European Court of Human Rights on hate speech and a look at the legislation of these three chosen States, the author assesses where and in what way change to this law would reflect the principles emergent from the Court. On this basis, the thesis gives a number of suggestions on how the legislation of the UK, France, and Malta should be amended in order to both prevent breach of the right to freedom of expression as well as to better protect hate speech victims. In Malta’s case, the thesis suggests amendments to certain provisions of the Criminal Code, the Press Act and the Broadcasting Act, and suggests the enactment of new rules in relation to hate speech on the Internet. Thus, apart from providing a digest of the Court’s treatment of applications before it relating to hate speech and the freedom of expression useful to students of the subject and courts alike, this thesis also seeks to be of practical use to the legislator.