Finland / Supreme Court / ECLI:FI:KKO:2022:63

Country

Finland

Title

Finland / Supreme Court / ECLI:FI:KKO:2022:63

View full Case

Year

2022

Decision/ruling/judgment date

Tuesday, November 15, 2022

Incident(s) concerned/related

Incitement to violence or hatred

Related Bias motivation

Migrant status

Groups affected

Muslims

Court/Body type

National Court

Court/Body

Supreme Court (Korkein oikeus / Högsta domstolen)

Key facts of the case

A had published on his YouTube channel videos which included speeches in two demonstrations. The videos were in English, but A had added subtitles in Finnish and several other languages. The speaker described immigrants and Muslims as “cruel, arrogant, stupid, worthless, and sick” and held that these groups of people should be “kicked out of the country”. In 2020, the district court convicted A for incitement to hatred to a fine. The appeal court upheld the decision. In the Supreme Court, A argued that the speeches were held in political demonstrations. By publishing the videos, A had taken part in the public debate on immigration and had imparted information, as a journalist would do.

Main reasoning/argumentation

The Supreme Court held that the expressions used in the videos were typical examples of slander and insult, in the meaning of the Criminal Code definition of ethnic agitation. Such hate speech is not protected by freedom of expression. The fact that the statements were originally made in political demonstrations, does not justify them. Apart from adding the subtitles to the videos, A had not conducted any actual editorial work. A knew the contents of the videos and must have understood that the statements were of an insulting and slanderous nature. The Supreme Court concluded that A was responsible for the videos published on his channel, even if he had not created all of the contents himself.

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

A person who distributes racist content online can be held accountable even when that person has not created the said content. There is less scope for restriction of freedom of expression in political speech or in debate on matters of public interest, but the right to express political opinions is not without limitations.

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

The Supreme Court upheld A’s fine and conviction.

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

”26. Korkein oikeus toteaa, että A on vastuussa yleisön saataville asettamastaan materiaalista, vaikka se ei ole kaikilta osin yksin hänen itsensä tuottamaa. A on tiennyt videoiden sisällön ... A:n on myös täytynyt ymmärtää levittämiensä mielipiteiden olevan luonteeltaan ainakin panettelevia ja solvaavia.” ”26. The Supreme Court finds that A is responsible for the material that he had made available to the public, though he had not created all of it himself. A has been aware of the contents of the videos ... A must also have understood that the statements he had spread were of an insulting and slanderous nature, at the very least.”

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.