Denmark / District Court of Hillerød

Country

Denmark

Title

Denmark / District Court of Hillerød

View full Case

Year

2015

Decision/ruling/judgment date

Monday, September 28, 2015

Incident(s) concerned/related

Incitement to violence or hatred

Related Bias motivation

Religion

Groups affected

Muslims

Court/Body type

National Court

Court/Body

District Court of Hillerød

Key facts of the case

The District Court of Hillerød convicted a man of incitement to hatred (hate speech). The man had written a longer statement on his private Facebook page where he commented on Muslims and among others compared them to monkeys. The District Court found that the statements could be read by a broader audience even though they were published on a private Facebook page and therefore found him guilty.

Main reasoning/argumentation

The District Court found the statements to be very severe and capable of being visible by a broader audience.

Is the case related to the application of the Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia, the Racial Equality Directive?

Key issues (concepts, interpretations) clarified by the case

The court assessed the question of whether statements published on private Facebook accounts could be addressed towards a broader audience and therefore a violation of the criminal code.

The statements written by the defendant were published on his private and closed Facebook profile where he had 68 friends. The court found that to be enough in regard to meeting the criteria of a broader audience.

Results (sanctions, outcome) and key consequences or implications of the case

10 daily penalties of 400 DKK

Key quotation in original language and its unofficial translation into English with reference details

"Det fremgik af sagen, at den pågældende Facebook-profil var lukket, men at udtalelserne var blevet udbredt til mindst 68 personer. Byretten lagde ved strafudmålingen vægt på udtalelsernes grovhed sammenholdt med omfanget af den kreds af personer, der umiddelbart blev bekendt hermed."

"It appeared from the case that the accused's Facebook profile was private, but the statements had been spread to at least 68 persons. When assessing the case the City Court took into account the severity ot the statements and the number of persons who immediate became familiar herewith."

DISCLAIMERThe information presented here is collected under contract by the FRA's research network FRANET. The information and views contained do not necessarily reflect the views or the official position of the FRA.