Denmark / Eastern High Court / Decision no. U.2016.2066Ø
Country
Denmark
Year
Decision/ruling/judgment date
Incident(s) concerned/related
Related Bias motivation
Groups affected
Court/Body type
Court/Body
Key facts of the case
The Higher Court convicted a well-known Danish politician for incitement to violence (hate speech).The politician wrote the following statement on Twitter: "The Muslims continue where Hitler left. The situation will only change if they get the same treatment as Hitler". The defendant had already been convicted by a lower court.
Main reasoning/argumentation
Both the lower and higher courts found that the statements were publicly available as they were published on an open Twitter account. Furthermore, they found that even though the law provides much space for opinions voiced in the context of political debate, these statements were degrading towards a minority and therefore not protected by the right to freedom of expression. Therefore, his statements were not within the limits of the freedom of speech and a part of the political debate.
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 defendant was a well-known politician and the judgement was relevant in regard to the balance between a free and open political debate on one hand and the protection of - in this case - a religious minority.
Results (sanctions, outcome) and key consequences or implications of the case
10 daily penalties of 800 DKK
Key quotation in original language and its unofficial translation into English with reference details
"Ved udmålingen af straffen må der - ud over udtalelsernes grovhed - lægges vægt på, at tiltalte er en kendt politiker, og at udtalelserne er fremsat via Twitter, hvorefter tiltalte må have indset, at udtalelserne, der var kontroversielle, ville nå bredt ud i offentligheden. "
"When assessing the case, it must be taken into account - besides from the severity of the statements - that the accused is a well-known politician and that the statements were written on Twitter, after which the accused must have realised that the statements, which were controversial, would reach a broad audience."