On February 5, pro-government media outlets Imedi, Rustavi 2, and POSTV, as well as news agencies Newshub and INFO9, and the Facebook page “ახლა • Akhla,” shared social media cards containing identical text. According to these media sources, the European Commission allegedly considers the phrases “there are only two sexes” and “a child cannot be transgender” to be hate speech, while the use of the words “slave” and “biomass” is considered freedom of expression.
This manipulative coverage by pro-government media creates the impression that the European Union applies double standards when interpreting freedom of expression and hate speech. In reality, freedom of expression refers to the right to hold and disseminate opinions, while a statement is considered hate speech when it incites violence and is based on discriminatory grounds. This interpretation is shared both by the European Union and other Western institutions.
Television channels and news agencies present the information as if the European Commission considers statements directed against sexual minorities to be hate speech while treating other offensive phrases as protected speech. However, various EU documents, as well as explanations by numerous Western organizations, define hate speech as having a discriminatory basis and as posing a risk of encouraging violence and hatred against an individual or a group on such grounds. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) also relies on this distinction between hate speech and freedom of expression when examining cases.
In 2000, the European Union adopted the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which defines and codifies fundamental human rights. Among them, the Charter includes a provision on freedom of expression. Article 11 (Freedom of expression and information) defines it as follows: “1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. 2. The freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected.”
Freedom of expression is also defined in the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 10 (Freedom of expression) describes it as the freedom to hold opinions and to express them, as well as the freedom to receive and impart information. The second paragraph states that freedom of expression may be subject to restrictions when this is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, territorial integrity, or public safety.
EU institutions have clarified the meaning of hate speech in numerous reports and decisions. For example, a 2008 EU report on combatting “certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law” explains that hate speech must incite hatred and potential violence against a group of persons or members of such a group defined by reference to race, skin color, religion, descent, or national or ethnic origin. According to this definition, hate speech involves public incitement to violence and hatred against a group or an individual.
Beyond the EU, a number of European institutions also define freedom of expression and hate speech. In a 2022 document, the Council of Europe, which provides recommendations to member states on combating hate speech, notes that effective protection requires correct identification of the term. According to this definition, hate speech has a broad social context, is based on discrimination, and violates the right to respect for private life.
The European Court of Human Rights explains that not all forms of speech are protected by the right to freedom of expression. Statements that incite violence and hatred based on racial, national, or ethnic differences constitute hate speech and are not protected under freedom of expression. Such statements do not fall under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The ECHR has repeatedly ruled on cases determining whether statements constituted hate speech or fell within the scope of freedom of expression. For example, in 2017, the Court examined Belkacem v. Belgium, which concerned statements made in 2012 by a Belgian blogger calling on Muslims to “teach a lesson” to and fight against non-Muslims. The Court ruled that these statements constituted hate speech rather than protected expression. Similarly, in Garaudy v. France, which concerned Holocaust denial, the Court found the statements incompatible with freedom of expression. The Court also examined Carl Jóhann Lilliendahl v. Iceland, which addressed whether homophobic comments posted under an article about strengthening education on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender issues in Icelandic schools fell within the scope of freedom of expression. The ECHR took into account the domestic court’s finding that the comments were “serious, severely hurtful, and prejudicial.”
Accordingly, the media engage in a manipulative comparison when claiming that the words “slave” and “biomass” fall within freedom of expression for the EU, while the statements “there are only two sexes” and “a child cannot be transgender” are considered hate speech. A closer look at how hate speech and freedom of expression are defined shows that the social media cards disseminated by pro-government media outlets are manipulative.
