Suchergebnisse

"This book critically evaluates the rise of the far-right in Greece, detailing the legal context in which to understand both the emergence of Golden Dawn, the far-right's largest grouping, and the 2020 court decision, in which it was deemed to be a criminal organization. Golden Dawn was a political party which, for years, also functioned as a violent subculture movement, with limited to no interference by the state. This book sets out the background to its rise in Greece, tracing its development from the post-Junta era. At the same time, the book provides an assessment of the legal framework within which the far-right has operated, and the legal tools available to tackle it - including criminal law, non-discrimination law, the laws governing political parties and the public order framework, and the country's international and European obligations. Golden Dawn functioned as both a political party and violent entity until its leadership and parliamentary members were found guilty of leading and participating in a criminal organization. This book demonstrates that the state of impunity in which Golden Dawn's violent hit squads functioned was both a facilitating factor for its rise, and potentially for its demise, as the group potentially felt untouchable. And its attention to how Greek Law has tackled, and failed to tackle, Golden Dawn offers a timely and more generally useful assessment of how legislation, courts and policies can best challenge the far-right. This book will be of interest to those teaching and studying in law and politics, as well as more others, concerned with the rise of the far right and violent organizations, especially in Europe"--

Since the Second World War, the international community has sought to prevent the repetition of destructive far-right forces by establishing institutions such as the United Nations and by adopting documents such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Jurisprudence and conventions directly prohibit far-right speech and expression. Nevertheless, recently, violent far-right entities, such as Golden Dawn of Greece, have received unprecedented electoral support, xenophobic parties have done spectacularly well in elections; and countries such as Hungary and Poland are being led by right-wing populists who are bringing constitutional upheaval and violating basic elements of doctrines such as the rule of law. In light of this current reality, this book critically assesses the international and European tools available for States to regulate the far-right. It conducts the analysis through a militant democracy lens. This doctrine has been considered in several arenas as a concept more generally; in the sphere of the European Convention on Human Rights; in relation to particular freedoms, such as that of association; and as a tool for challenging the far-right movement through the spectrum of political science. However, this doctrine has not yet been applied within a legal assessment of challenging the far-right as a single entity. After analysing the aims, objectives, scope and possibility of shortcomingsin international and European law, the book looks at what state obligations arise from these laws. It then assesses how freedom of opinion and expression, freedom of association and freedom of assembly are provided for in international and European law and explores what limitation grounds exist which are directly relevant to the regulation of the far-right. The issue of the far-right is a pressingone on the agenda of politicians, academics, civil society and other groups in Europe and beyond. As such, this book will appeal to those with an interest in International, European or Human rights Law and political science.

This paper looks at the tools available on an international and European level in relation to the legal regulation of hate speech. More particularly, it considers the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination along with related case-law of the respective monitoring committees. It looks at the European Convention on Human Rights and how the European Court of Human Rights interprets the limits of free speech when confronted with cases of hate speech. It also looks at the Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia of the European Union and the Additional Protocol to the Cybercrime Convention of the Council of Europe. Through the analysis it demonstrates that there is no common approach amongst international and European institutions on what hate speech is and the threshold which needs to be met for legal regulation to be permissible. It also demonstrates that the tools available focus only on some types of hate speech.

Abstract
In Handyside v. The United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) held that the right to freedom of expression, as provided for in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects not only expressions that are favorably received but also those that 'offend, shock or disturb'. 1 Yet, the Court has since developed a substantial body of inconsistent case-law allowing restrictions on 'hate speech' that severely questions the degree to which offensive, shocking and disturbing speech is truly protected by the ECHR. Against a qualitative and quantitative backdrop, the authors argue that the Court and previously the Commission, have adopted an overly restrictive approach to hate speech, which fails to provide adequate protection to political speech on controversial issues, including criticism of public officials and government institutions and has created an inconsistent and even arbitrary body of case law. Instead, jurisdictions that recognize a need to balance the freedom of expression with limits on hate speech have adopted more convincing approaches of hate speech, providing a robust protection of free speech while leaving room for the State to curtail the most extreme forms of non-violent hate speech.

Media plays a critical a role today for the protection and the strengthening of peaceful democratic societies. On the other hand, Democracy gives us freedom—'the right to free speech'. The media through television channels, the Internet, and newspapers assume the role of the moral guardian in society. More than often, we depend on the media to seek the truth. But truth is subjective. What is truth to you might not be the truth to me. Therefore, the media is expected to carefully analyze a situation from all possible angles rather than merely pass a fixed moral judgment. This International Symposium today we discuss with the question of the role of mass media in modern democracies. Mass communication is indispensable for today's large-scale societies, and television, newspapers and the radio are the most important sources of information for citizens all around the globe. But while there seems to be great consensus about what this means for dictatorships and countries in transition, the contribution of mass media to the wellfunctioning of more mature and established democracies is highly debated among scholars, politicians and practitioners alike. There is usually no doubt that mass media help maintaining the system and the power of the government in authoritarian regimes where they are – at least for the most part – tightly controlled by the state.

Intro -- Contents -- Contributors -- 1 Introduction and Background -- 1.1 Hate Speech in the EU and the C.O.N.T.A.C.T. Project -- 1.2 Regulating Hate Speech in the EU -- 1.3 Hate Speech in the Online Setting -- 1.4 The C.O.N.T.A.C.T. Research Workstream -- References -- 2 The C.O.N.T.A.C.T. Methodological Approach -- 2.1 Harvesting and Analysing Online Comments to News Reports -- 2.2 Approximating Perceptions of Hate -- References -- 3 Analysis of Online Comments to News Reports -- 3.1 Categorisation and Defence Strategies -- 3.2 Stereotyping Vulnerable Groups -- 3.3 From 'Patriotism' to Hate: Axiological Urgency in Online Comments Related to Refugees -- 3.4 Metaphors Related to Othering the Non-natives -- 3.5 The Implicit Dimension of Discriminatory Discourse -- 3.6 Changing Participant Roles in the Expression of Hate Speech -- References -- 4 Young People's Perception of Hate Speech -- 4.1 Youth and Hate Speech in the (Mediatised) Public Sphere -- 4.2 Resistance Against Hate Speech: Generation 'Snowflake' or Generation 'Woke'? -- 4.3 Folk Characterisations of Hate Speech -- 4.4 Thoughts on Regulating Hate Speech -- 4.5 It All Depends on Who Discrimination Targets -- 4.6 The Conceptual Contiguity of Race and Religion -- 4.7 Hate Speech and the Communication Medium -- 4.8 Hate Speech, Cyberbullying and Online Anonymity -- References -- 5 Concluding Remarks -- References.