Doctoral Researcher Jasmin Hannonen discusses the criminal law control of hate speech and its impact on the freedom of speech.
“In my doctoral dissertation, I research the legitimacy of the criminal law control of hate speech in liberal democracy, and more specifically agitation against a population group. When I was selecting my topic, I did not know what a burning issue it would become. The discussion on the topic has become heated in the last six months and even weeks in Finland with prominent public figures being accused of hate speech.
It can be said that there is an ongoing battle on who can define what hate speech is and how criminal law should react to it. What makes the question conceptually challenging are the pre-existing meanings that change when hate speech is defined from the perspective of different interests. So far, the discussion on the topic has left it open who should be justifiably granted enhanced protection against hate speech in the criminal law.
There is much debate over whether the essential elements of agitation against a population group limit political freedom of speech. On the basis of our analysis of the legal praxis of agitation against a population group in courts of first instance, this is not the case in Finland.
On the other hand, if political freedom of speech is overplayed, at its worst, it can lead to a situation where a politically active individual is not made liable for actions that would incriminate a politically inactive individual.
"I hope that my research will impact how hate speech is approached in the criminal law."
The public discussion in Finland is dominated by the charges and sentences of individual politicians. The apparent tension between hate speech and freedom of speech is shown in a different light when the study focuses on the legal praxis of agitation against a population group in courts of first instance instead of a narrow analysis of high-profile cases. Our analysis of the legal praxis of agitation against a population group in courts of first instance shows that political freedom of speech is specifically protected, not limited.
I hope that my research will impact how hate speech is approached in the criminal law. In practice, this could mean, for example, legislative changes or outlines for the legal praxis. As hate speech becomes more common, we need to consider whether we can currently respond to the phenomenon to a sufficient extent.
You have to believe that your research matters – that you can make a difference in the issues you perceive. Something has to propel you. Perhaps this is what inspires research, when you get the feeling of gaining momentum.”
Text: Minna Nerg
Photos: Hanna Oksanen
Translation: Mari Ratia
