On 6 March, Members adopted a draft law amending the penal code to conviction long-term prison sentences to persons suspected of ‘revocation to hatred’ due to ‘disability, age, sex and sexual orientation’. The issue has a deeper context if we take into account all the actions taken to defend the "integration of information", the fight against "foreign information manipulation and interference" (FIMI) and the "defence" of democracy.
Stop censorship!
Today they censor the Church – next day they forbid you to believe!
The Sejm passed a draft of the Penalization Act, the alleged "hate speech", which is presently in the Senate. We are now calling on president Duda to veto this harmful bill!
The Sejm passed a draft of the Penalization Act, the alleged "hate speech", which is presently in the Senate. We are now calling on president Duda to veto this harmful bill!
The vote did not include the proposal of the Together organization to include in the catalogue of protected characteristics a "sexual identity", covering any number of "cultural genders". The task went to the Senate, where it will surely be accepted. The current ruling coalition expects the fresh law to be signed by its president as shortly as it wins the May elections.
The amendment to the Criminal Code amends the catalogue of grounds for hatred crimes. Adds to national, ethnic, racial, spiritual and non-denominational membership: age, gender, disability and "sexual orientation".
In the event of force or unlawful threats from specified motives, the fishy may be in jail for up to 5 years, for incitement to hatred — up to 3 years, and for insulting — for 2 years imprisonment.
Donald Tusk's government intensified efforts to change the law last summer. lawyer General Adam Bodnar announced fresh guidelines and set up a squad of anti-hate speech advisors and bias-motivated crimes.
They stem not only from Minister Bodnar's individual interest in this issue, but besides from urging the European Commission, the Council of Europe and the UN to declare war on freedom of expression, under the pretext of combating social polarity, protecting democracy and ensuring the alleged integrity of information and the integrity of elections.
PCh24Council of Europe guidelines
In October 2024, the Warsaw Human Dimension 2024 conference revealed fresh recommendations of the Council of Europe to combat hatred crimes. Erik Adell Hellström, Head of the Anti-Discrimination, Diversity and Inclusion Steering Committee (CDADI) explained that the guidelines were created "with the urgent request to make a soft law standard" due to the fact that "hate crimes violate fundamental human rights and endanger the safety of individuals and mark groups, and harm social stableness and peace, thereby threatening the foundations of democratic societies".
A working definition of "hate crimes" was created to "make them easy to prosecute and increase the conviction rate". The guidelines are intended to aid increase the number of "crimes" reported by victims and "map" haters in Europe.
According to the definition of the Council of Europe, "a speech of hatred" is "words that spread, advance and justify racial hatred, xenophobia, anti-Semitism and another forms of intolerance that undermine democratic security, cultural cohesion and pluralism."
There is no legal definition of “hate speech” in any of the laws in force in Poland. However, the courts convict under this pretext, referring to Article 256 of the Criminal Code ("Who publically promotes Nazi, Communist, fascist or another totalitarian state government or calls for hatred against national, ethnic, racial, spiritual or non-denominational differences, is subject to imprisonment until the age of 3") and Article 257 k.k. ‘He who publically insults a group of the population or individual due to its national, ethnic, racial, spiritual or due to its undenominationality or for specified reasons violates the physical integrity of another individual shall be punishable by imprisonment of up to 3 years.’
UN Human Rights Committee already in recommendations on consideration VII Poland's interim reports on the implementation of the provisions of the global Pact on civilian and Political Rights of 31 October 2016 regretted that the Polish penal code does not mention to "disability, age, sexual orientation and sex identity as the basis of hatred crimes".
The Committee on the Rights of the kid in its final remarks to the combined 5th and sixth interim reports of Poland of 24 September 2021 recommended that the law be supplemented to guarantee protection against all forms of discrimination, including "sexual orientation" and "sex identity", disability and gender. The intention was to prosecute specified "crimes" from public prosecution alternatively than private prosecution.
For these and another reasons, in January 2024, the Ministry of Justice began work on the revision of the penal code in order to take into account the “talk of hatred” and “hate crimes”.
The catalogue of the aggravating circumstances to be taken into account for the punishment in Article 53 pairs was besides originally worked out. 2a point 6k.
With his work on the change in the Code, the lawyer General formed a squad of anti-hate speech advisers on 29 July and motivated by prejudice. He changed the erstwhile guidelines of lawyer General Andrzej Seremeta. The fresh squad was headed by Dr. Aleksandra Gliszczyńska-Grabas, an expert in anti-Semitism.
According to the RE guidelines of 2024, "hate crimes" were considered to be "a peculiarly serious kind of crime", and "hate can manifest itself with varying degrees of severity, from regular stigma and discrimination, micro-aggression and verbal force to violence, terrorism, war crimes and genocide."
Recognising that criminal law "cannot be interpreted broadly to the detriment of the accused", it was acknowledged that "there is no binding global definition of hatred crimes".
Stop censorship!
Today they censor the Church – next day they forbid you to believe!
The Sejm passed a draft of the Penalization Act, the alleged "hate speech", which is presently in the Senate. We are now calling on president Duda to veto this harmful bill!
Since there is no legal definition, there is no way to prosecute alleged "crimes" and to punish many years of imprisonment.
However, citing a number of another guidelines, recommendations and the non-ratified "Stambul Convention", it was pointed out that the fight against "hate crimes" is essential and requires coordinated action to facilitate the pursuit of "guilty".
The guidelines specify ‘hate crime’ as ‘a crime committed with an component of hatred based on 1 or more actual or perceived individual characteristics or status, where: a. hatred includes prejudice, superstition or contempt; b. individual features or position include, but not limited to, race, colour, language, religion, nationality, national or cultural origin, age, disability, gender, sexual orientation, sex identity and expression and sexual characteristics’.
Among another things, it was recommended to usage a multisectoral approach to policy making in this area, ensuring an appropriate criminal response. The State is to facilitate the pursuit, conviction and stigmatisation of “hatemakers” while favouring certain communities. It was added that "effective, proportionate and dissuasive" provisions must "be consistent with the principles of legality and proportionality". Comprehensive training of prosecutors, police officers and judges was recommended to alert them to specified "crimes" as may be directed against "persons, groups of persons or property, as well as spaces, artifacts, objects or events related to persons with protected features".
It has been reserved that associate States should lay down rules in accordance with the minimum criminalisation principle, recognise imprisonment as a final measurement and follow the principles of recommendations on corrective justice.
UN and the fight for "Integrity of Information"
Also in June 2024, the UN urged States to take action against "hate speech" and "disinformation". In his recommendations on the Global Principles of Information Integration, UN Secretary-General António Guterres stated that "the planet must respond to the harm caused by the spread of hatred and lies on the net while firmly respecting human rights".
By declaring war on misinformation, misinformation and “talk of hatred” and another threats to the “information system” that fuel conflicts and endanger democracy and human rights, undermining public wellness and climate action, Guterres called on governments, technology companies, advertisers and the PR manufacture to stand up to the challenge and take work for spreading content that causes damage, especially during the election period, demanding automated censorship and prosecution of all "hatemakers". All to "make digital space safer and more inclusive".
The UN has developed a code of conduct on the integrity of information on digital platforms. The preliminary "voluntary code" – comments on the proposed rules could be submitted by 22 December 2023 – was presented to the representatives of the states at the September 2024 Summit of the Future. The main nonsubjective of the task was to deal with the "democracy of information" on online platforms, which increase the scope and velocity of circulation of content in society. This “democratisation” threatened, according to the UN, “social discrimination, political stableness and the well-being of the individual” due to the fact that it facilitated the spread of “hate speech”, violence, extremist ideologies, cyber force and harassment on the Internet, which destruct tissue and social cohesion. The speech of hatred and disinformation is designed to manipulate public opinion and undermine assurance in institutions and influence democratic processes. The voluntary Code of Conduct on the integrity of information on digital platforms would so aid to combat it and supply a "golden standard for action to strengthen information integrity".
UN action focuses on the fight against mis-, mal- and misinformation (MDM information) and "hate speech", although the Organisation acknowledges that there are no legal definitions of MDM information and "hate speech", hence working definitions are used. In the case of "hate speech", the working definition contained in the UN hatred speech strategy and action plan is set out. It means ‘any kind of communication in speech, writing or conduct which attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language in relation to a individual or groups on the basis of who they are, in another words on the basis of their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, origin, gender or another identity factor’.
Although the phenomenon of hatred is not new, it has been recognised that it is now expected to spread on an unprecedented scale through the net and thus "threat the advancement of humanity." Therefore, countries request to take action to reduce the "damages" caused by the spread of misinformation, malinformation and "talk of hatred".
Regulations imposed on digital platforms to guarantee "information integrity" on the network are key to play a function in this respect, without allowing certain ideas to circulate and advance "harmful narratives".
The UN observes that there is simply a advanced hazard of regulating freedom of speech. Therefore, it is essential to adopt a "fairly adjusted approach, in line with the requirements of legality, necessity and proportionality, as set out in human rights law, even if there is simply a legitimate public interest objective" to limit this speech.
At the same time, it is pointed out that the fight for "integrity of information" must always be pursued with respect to the objectives of sustainable development, their "fundamental importance for building a planet where trust can be restored".
One way to fight for "integrity of information" is to use, in the fresh context of the defamation, cyber-violence and harassment government in any countries, which has already been done without imposing fresh restrictions on freedom of expression. Another is the regulation of online platforms at regional and national level (e.g. DSA in the EU to combat "illegal content"). Another way to fight for "integrity of information" is to force platforms into "self-regulatory actions" (guidelines, standards, codes on the removal and moderation of content), allocating more resources to control content in different languages and financing organisations fact-checking. Platforms should besides make "automated content moderation systems".
In line with the UN Head of Policy Guidelines on Global Digital Compact adopted in September 2024, states should implement the UN Code of Conduct on Information Integrity, combating the "hate speech".
EU initiatives
Similarly, the EU institutions have taken a number of steps to address a comprehensive approach to reducing the alleged “hate speech” and ensuring “information integrity”.
A framework decision was adopted in 2008 to combat certain forms of expression of racism and xenophobia, which requires criminalisation of public incitement to force or hatred on grounds of race, colour, religion, national or cultural origin or nationality. The EC is in charge of regulating these issues, which, as guardian of the Treaties, monitors the correct implementation of the Framework Decision.
On 9 December 2021, the European Commission adopted a communication which prompted the Council to decide to extend the current list of "EU offences" in Article 83(1) TFEU to "hate crimes" and "hate speech". The communication was then accepted by the Council. The EC will now be able to propose government allowing the criminalisation of forms of "hate speech" and "hate crime", taking into account another motives too racist or xenophobic.
In addition, the EC has another tools to influence national authorities through the advanced Level Group on the fight against hatred speech and hatred crimes, which has been in operation since 2016. At the same time, Brussels initiated a voluntary Code of Conduct on combating illegal hatred speech on the Internet. The paper initially accepted the main online platforms. It was then updated and in January 2025 the EU decided to include it in the Digital Services Act (DSA – an highly dangerous regulation already in force in all EU countries and limiting freedom of expression).
The EC besides has circumstantial strategies, e.g. the EU strategy to combat anti-Semitism and support judaic life (2021–2030), utilized to combat “hate speech”.
In December 2023, the Commission and the advanced typical adopted the Joint Communication "There is no place for hatred: a Europe united against hatred" to step up work on combating undesirable content on the Internet.
A number of guidelines for high-level groups have besides been developed earlier, e.g. "Key guiding principles for 2022 on cooperation between law enforcement authorities and civilian society organisations" (crime reporting and prosecution).
Their aim is to identify and map "hate" environments, improve the reporting of alleged "hate crimes" in order to justify the request for legal regulations and amendments to the penal code, in order to punish more frequently and harshly for alleged hatred crimes. This is to act as a deterrent to people (building a "national law enforcement potential"). Hence, actions are coordinated by the EC and the EU Agency for Law Enforcement Training (CEPOL).
Stop censorship!
Today they censor the Church – next day they forbid you to believe!
The Sejm passed a draft of the Penalization Act, the alleged "hate speech", which is presently in the Senate. We are now calling on president Duda to veto this harmful bill!
EU Defence Shield for Democracy and FIMI
In the European Parliament's December 2024 briefing (European Parliamentary investigation Service PE 767.153 – December 2024 EN), peculiar attention was paid to promoting a fresh concept on the global stage, namely the "integrity of information" combined with the "European shield of democracy". Pointing out that "digital information has become a public space for debate: a place where people gain access to information and formulate and express opinions" and "over the last 10 years global information ecosystems have besides become increasingly geostrategic battlefields of battles", it was recognised that states must reduce "public opinion manipulation" by "authoritarian actors", who "test and make manipulation techniques to fuel divisions and tensions to undermine democratic societies and open democratic systems".
Geostrategic competition is to translate into corporate geopolitics. "The Digital Information Area has become a disputed territory for large corporations that are fiercely competing for leadership in the improvement and implementation of fresh technologies, with artificial intelligence (AI) being a origin that changes the rules of the game in this quest. These innovations pose a risk: information manipulation campaigns facilitated by generic AI increase threats to democratic information ecosystems."
The EU institutions so combine, as the UN does, the fight for "integrity of information" with combating MDM information and alleged hatred speech and defending democratic values, including "integrity of elections" (protection against external interference).
It is crucial to emphasise the importance of the word "integrity of information", which is inactive developed and promoted in global fora, including by the EU institutions, the UN, the OECD, as a "positive approach to a securely navigable field of information with access to reliable information for all".
Parliament suggests that this concept, within the meaning of the UN and OECD, is in line with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights on Freedom of Expression, which includes the freedom to have views and to receive and communicate information and ideas without interference from the authorities and regardless of borders. We read in the briefing that "In the EU, the broad concept of information integrity falls within the scope of the evolving European thought of the shield of democracy. The first democracy shield initiative launched in July 2024 combines existing work to counter abroad information manipulation and interference (FIMI) with the implementation of key government and initiatives aimed at improving the wellness of the information sphere. This includes the regulation of online platforms and search engines in the Digital Services Act (DSA), including the reinforced code of conduct of 2022, so that online platforms do more to limit information manipulation and hatred speech, as well as the work of the European Digital Media Observatory (EDMO) and its regional centres. It besides includes the Act on Artificial Intelligence with its risk-based approach to the regulation of artificial intelligence, including generic manipulation of information facilitated by artificial intelligence, specified as deepfakes, the European Act on media freedom and the regulation on transparency and policy advertising".
All these and the recently created rules on "integrity of information" in the EU are crucial to justify the far-reaching interference of the EU authorities in public debate and in general interference in electoral processes in another countries, as confirmed in this explanation, describing in item the initiatives already undertaken, among others, by the European External Action Service (EEAS), which came up with the word "foreign information manipulation and interference" (FIMI – Foreign Information Manipulation and interference) in 2021. It has been defined as ‘which threatens or may adversely affect the values, procedures and political processes’, has a ‘manipulation character’ and is ‘provided in a targeted and coordinated manner’, including ‘state or non-state entities, including their agents inside and outside their own territory’. Based on this definition, the EC interferes with Romanian presidential elections.
The European Parliament confirms that the concept of "integrity of information" is developing and is to be a pillar of the framework of the European shield of democracy within and outside the EU. It has already been utilized by the EP in the resolutions of the 2 peculiar Committees on abroad Ingerence in 2022 and 2023, calling for the creation of an information integrity centre that would act as a cognition centre facilitating and supporting operational exchange between associate States, institutions and EU agencies.
It is the European countries that advance the concept of "information integrity" in the UN. They have succeeded, among another things, in adopting it in the final papers from the Summit of the Future: the Future Pact, the Global Digital Pact and the Declaration on Future Generations, where the issue of "cooperation to advance the integrity of information, tolerance and respect in digital space, as well as the integrity of democratic processes" has been highlighted.
Today, states that have erstwhile adopted the Declaration of Human Rights, which protects freedom of speech as a foundation for another human rights, are seeking to restrict this right, hoping that countries in various global acts will agree to this far-reaching interference in human rights in the name of the "higher good" which would be the protection of democracy.
This issue is absolutely crucial for knowing a number of spectacular despotic actions taken by the authorities to limit the freedom of public debate and interference in the electoral systems of many states that do not comply with 1 pre-imposed imagination of the planet and created a fresh reality – alternatively fiction.
Although this case is being underestimated, considering that it is just a skirmish between politicians or a panic caused by journalists, the changes presently being implemented will have far-reaching consequences in all citizen's regular life. And although it may be comforting that, as the pendulum is pushed 1 way, the far-left side – what was done in the US – will increase opposition in time and the pendulum can emergence the another way. However, before this happens, many people will suffer, and seriously, and any changes already made will be hard to reverse.
Indeed, it is impossible to callback all initiatives taken on the global phase and in individual countries on "integrity of information". Canadians, the British, Germany, the Dutch and until the change of power in the US led the Biden – Harris administration, liable for creating a sophisticated "Industrial Complex of Censura" under the pretext of fighting for the defence of democracy.
Stop censorship!
Today they censor the Church – next day they forbid you to believe!
The Sejm passed a draft of the Penalization Act, the alleged "hate speech", which is presently in the Senate. We are now calling on president Duda to veto this harmful bill!
In May 2024, the U.S. cyberspace and digital policy strategy built the concept of "information integrity" into diplomatic policy. The protection of "integrity of information" was considered a priority. The paper stressed that the EU-US Trade and Technology Council (TTC), OECD and G7 are key forums for cooperation in building civilian resilience to the global challenge of digital information manipulation that threatens the vitality of society. Realizing that "building the integrity of information" is not in line with the freedom of opinion and expression, it was noted that it could be lawful if the states had mostly recognised it.
Then surely censorship could make on an incredible scale.
Biden's squad in cooperation with Brussels launched a joint US-EU coordination mechanics on the integrity of information in the Western Balkans in order to "restrict the capacity of Russia and the People's Republic of China to usage propaganda campaigns and to manipulate information in the region".
The EU diplomatic service has since expanded its anti-FIMI activities (EUvsDIsinfo, RAS fast informing system, StratCom, EU has intensified cooperation with NATO, G7, information and analysis centres are being built – FIMI ISAC, etc.).
The creation of the "European Shield of Democracy" has led to extended efforts by Commissioner for Democracy, Justice, the regulation of law and consumer protection Michael McGrath. These include intensified struggles with abroad manipulation of information and interference. McGrath is under Henna Virkkunen, Executive Vice president for Technological Sovereignty, safety and Democracy. The authoritative is responsible, inter alia, for the enforcement of the DSA and another regulations relating to the fight against MDM information and "hate speech".
The European External Action Service (EEAS) has been leading EU efforts to counter Russian misinformation since 2015.
On 20 January 2025, the EC informed about the amendment of the Code of Conduct on combating illegal hatred speech on the Internet+. The paper was incorporated into the regulatory framework of the Digital Services Act (DSA)
The Code of Conduct+, which is based on the Code of Conduct adopted in 2016, strengthens the principles of combating content considered to be an illegal ‘loath speech’. Facilitates DSA enforcement in this circumstantial area. In addition, it introduces fresh obligations for platforms, including the request to supply national data on the classification of “hate speech” and the creation of a network of “monitoring reporters”. They are to be public entities reporting “a hatred speech”. Platforms will be required to review at least two-thirds of the notifications of “hate speech” received from “monitoring reporters” within 24 hours.
The European Commission reports showed that, following the introduction of the first Code in 2016, the percent of deleted content on "hate speech" increased from 28% in 2016 to 72% in 2019. The EC is now counting on the removal of an even greater percent of hateful messages.
Apart from a number of programmes dedicated to combating the “talk of hatred”, it is worth noting the broad working definitions of this phenomenon. For example, UNESCO includes not only “a speech of hatred” but besides “any kind of communication in speech, writing or conduct that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language in relation to a individual or group on the basis of who they are – in another words, on the basis of their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, origin, sex or another origin of identity, but besides added that forms of “hate speech” include “stereotypes, stigmatisation and usage of offensive language, promotion of conspiracy theories, disinformation and denial, and distortion of historical events specified as genocide”. Although it has been pointed out that global law protects the forms of speech that may be offensive and rise concerns about prejudice and intolerance, it has been recommended that various preventive measures be applied, shifting work for forcing an unlawful regulation of public debate on online platforms which, under force from the authorities, should adopt "voluntary codes of conduct" on combating MDM information and "hate speech" (example of the conflict of the Muska platform, which opposes censorship).
In January 2025, the Oenzet Commissioner for Human Rights argued that "[d]letting hatred speech and harmful content on the net has real consequences" and "regulation of this content is not censorship".
Commissioner Volker Türk responded to the announcement by Chief Meta Mark Zuckerberg of the conclusion of the U.S. fact-check program, due to the fact that fact-checkers are biased and ‘self-regulation’ results in besides much censorship. Of course, this happened after the change of power in the US and what is important, after extended congressional investigations around the "Industrial Complex of Censure".
Local government representatives besides received appropriate recommendations: mayors and city presidents at the 5th Global Summit of Mayors and Local Governments. They are recommended to make plans to combat “hate speech” including, on the 1 hand, tracking and monitoring the activity of “hatemakers”, establishing databases and taking targeted legal action. At the same time, the promotion of ideology is suggested gender etc. circumstantial monitoring tools are recommended, e.g. Hoaxy visualizes the dissemination of information and supports checking facts, Claim Buster is simply a live, automated network information checker, Botomer helps identify bots that are frequently utilized to scale “disinformation” while BotAmp allows you to compare the impact of bots on 2 sets tweets, Trends and Network helps identify and map trends in the way information spread around circumstantial topics etc.
Universal censorship?
Dr. Adina Portaru from the law firm Think tank ADF global criticised the EU DSA regulation in January, which favours many abuses and erosion of fundamental freedoms. She rightly noted that, by fighting the information of the MDM and the “talk of hatred” on the Internet, the ground is actually being prepared for widespread censorship, limiting freedom of speech and telling the fact under the pretext of ensuring compliance with the policy and security. Thus, the free exchange of ideas is suppressed, and views that are unfavourable to those in power are silenced.
However, freedom of expression is “a cornerstone of democratic society and includes the right to express unpopular or controversial opinions. For example, for any it is controversial to say that there are only 2 sexes, and practicing sodomy is simply a sin. Finnish parliamentarian Päivi Räsänen, who was accused of “a hatred speech” due to the fact that she tweeted in 2019 on sexual ethics, struggled with trials for years before being unanimously acquitted of the “hate speech” – both by the Helsinki territory Court and the Court of Appeal. Nevertheless, the lawyer General referred her to the ultimate Court of Finland.
Freedom of expression means not only, as is stated in Article 54 of the Polish Constitution, freedom of expression, including judgments, opinions, conjectures, information about facts, but besides freedom to get and disseminate information.
There is no universally acceptable definition of the legal alleged hatred speech, so it cannot be criminalised by providing for sanctions in the penal code, as lawyers mostly point out.
Adopted government in European countries and another regions of the world, which criminalise “the speech of hatred”, de facto they break a number of global conventions, limiting public debate.
Therefore, signatories to the Joint Declaration on Freedom of Speech and the Election of the United Nations peculiar Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, together with representatives of the Organisation for safety and Cooperation in Europe and the Organisation of American States of 2020, expressed concern that "many countries have passed rules that, although formally justified, may "overly restrict freedom of speech, extend state control over the media, restrict freedom on the Internet". This reduces public debate, access to information that is essential to make informed choices.
In the United States, where freedom of speech is much better protected, The ultimate Court is skeptical of ruling on alleged incitement to violence. He noted that the very abstract theorizing and speaking about e.g. the "moral necessity of resorting to force and violence" is not the same as "preparing the group for violent actions". Hence, even terrorist speeches aimed at persuasion should not be censored. This does not mean that any lawyers do not propose to tighten the law on this issue (e.g. prof. Eric Posner of the University of Chicago).
Another conviction is retired prof. David Post, formerly associated with Temple University. He points out that, in retrospect, action taken during the wars of the past to suppress freedom of expression was incorrect and was counterproductive. They were even “disgraceful”. The post suggested that ambiguous terms specified as "proclaim", "support" and "incentive" could be interpreted as suppressing a legitimate message expressing opposition. Similarly, the influential investigator of the first amendment, Prof. Geoffrey Stone of the University of Chicago, points out.
More recently, courts have ruled on respective cases in which social media platforms have been sued, trying to place them liable for the death of household members in terrorist attacks (responsibility related to the sharing of terrorist platforms). In these cases, the judges pointed out that a direct causal link between the provision of ISIS accounts, e.g. via Twitter, and subsequent assassinations, resulting in the deaths of close families active in the action, could not be demonstrated. In taking specified a line of reasoning, transport providers, restaurateurs and mobile telephone networks should besides be held responsible, as terrorists frequently usage all these services.
Furthermore, as noted, it is in the interests of intelligence agencies – what they were going to search – that possible assassins be present on social media. This allows data collection and better anticipation of the objectives and priorities of their action.
“Precise control” test. Unclearness promotes unconstitutionality
In America, due to the desire to regulate social media in order to accomplish a crucial interest of the government, a ‘close control’ test is being carried out (in the case law of the ECHR and the Polish Constitutional Court this is referred to as the ‘proportionality test’). It is pointed out that any specified regulation that restricts freedom has a common weakness: the problem with defining what a word means, and so what it may apply.
Unclearness is conducive to unconstitutionality. The ultimate Court has already ruled that all law "extremely vague" is unconstitutional. Legal concepts must be understood by people of “average intelligence”. If this is not the case, then the rule of a "right process" is breached (procedure due process – the aim is to guarantee a fair procedure before a court or another body, the application of which will precede the deprivation or limitation of the rights and freedoms of the individual), integrity and equality, as specified law is inherently susceptible to arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. If the "overly vague law" regulates speech in particular, it besides violates the first amendment, as it inevitably prevents people from speaking on these issues in fear that they could violate the law (autocensorship). Therefore, the ultimate Court “with peculiar rigorism” imposed doctrine void for vagueness. It marks the rough language of the legal definitions in criminal law. In fact, it is considered that it cannot be punished for acts that are not precisely defined. another proceedings would jeopardise the stableness of the legal system.
There is simply a different approach in Europe, including Poland, where flexibility, deficiency of precision are considered to make the law adaptable depending on the circumstances, avoiding the "orthodox" adherence to the letter of law. This approach fosters judicial activism and leads to abuse.
It is not hard to foretell that ambiguity in the "talk of hatred" will lead to the suppression of "authorised speech". It is doubtful that the benefits of suppressing freedom of speech outweigh costs in case of false alarms.
Stop censorship!
Today they censor the Church – next day they forbid you to believe!
The Sejm passed a draft of the Penalization Act, the alleged "hate speech", which is presently in the Senate. We are now calling on president Duda to veto this harmful bill!
Furthermore, legal systems in different countries supply for certain exceptions to the application of the right to freedom of expression and they concern, for example, defamation, spreading kid pornography, utilizing Fighting words, fraud, etc. These legal instruments let individuals to exercise their rights in the event of harassment, insulting, cheating, etc. If the victims prove that they have suffered harm, they may search compensation and compensation.
In the current tremendous polarization, virtually everything that the “second party” says can be considered “disinformation” or “a hatred speech”. The U.S. SN opposed, for example, the regulation of freedom of expression even in the case of the "curious Bell" concerning the publication of a 1994 book by Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein. The authors compared the average IQ of African Americans with the remainder of the population and the sense of social reforms. The court refused to sanction the publication of the results of these studies. Similarly, he consistently annulled provisions containing terms specified as ‘scorny’, ‘insulting’, ‘insulting’, recognising that the U.S. government has no competence to prohibit ‘speak of hatred’.
The United States has been debating the regulation of the "talk of hate" for almost a century, but the SN wants to avoid accusations of discrimination due to "point of view", "specific motivational ideology or opinion or perspective" (e.g. R.A.V. case against St. Paul city). The judges are afraid that, as a consequence of any regulation, in order to defend 1 group and a ‘reasonable interest’, they could discriminate at the same time, causing greater harm. That is why doctrine plays specified an crucial function void for vagueness.
Currently, the coalition of 13 December, adopting a regulation on the fight against “the speech of hatred”, de facto He wants to codified his ideology, which – referring to the characteristics of the totalitarian strategy of prof. Bankowicz and Kozub-Ciembronewicz – could describe that he is something of a "religious faith".
Andrew Sellars, manager of the Technology and Cyberlaw Clinic at the Faculty of Law of the University of Boston has evaluated hundreds of regulations attempting to codified the “talk of hate”. He analysed legislation, but besides working definitions utilized by online platforms. He pointed out that a crucial part of academic cognition on “hate speech” is based on examples alternatively than definitions. Moreover, it even believes that a "acceptable framework" of this definition cannot be created. The comprehensive analysis leads Sellars to the conclusion that, due to the conflicting interests of the parties – freedom of expression v. “hate speech” – it is not possible to make an nonsubjective definition of “hate speech” and so cannot be codified.
According to Sellars, the inability to agree on even the basic framework underlines the futility of creating definitions that would should be narrow adequate to defend constitutional freedom of speech and at the same time wide adequate to cover any visible category of expression as protected.
In the US, inactive in the 2011 ruling, ultimate Court president John Roberts pointed out that the warrant of freedom of speech was crucial to ensuring a free public debate, to maintaining democracy. Without freedom of speech and gatherings there is no debate, no discussion, no abrasion of ideas, no criticism. There's no investigation into the truth. But it opens the field to tyranny, due to the fact that the top threat to freedom is an inert nation. The deficiency of resistance, however, exudes despots.
Agnieszka Stelmach
