Vox Populi

Liisa Pakosta

Minister of justice and digital affairs (Estonia 200)

Estonia needs to transpose the 2008 EU Council Framework Decision on combating certain forms of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law, which has received support from all political parties in the Riigikogu. As the year indicates, this transposition has posed great challenges for many Estonian governments. It is about finding a balance between two very important fundamental rights.
Firstly, the protection of freedom of expression, and secondly, the protection of the security of people of a certain nationality, of different color or religion. These three descriptors have also historically been the ones that have been used to inflame people to kill one another. According to the Framework Decision, when such descriptors are involved, it is not enough for the act to be prosecuted as a misdemeanor, but it must also be possible to impose criminal penalties in the case of incitement to hatred posing a drastic threat to society.
This is not the most pressing issue in Estonia. It is partly because of this that we are seeking a solution that would not go beyond the limitations on freedom of speech required by European Union law. By transposing EU law in a narrow fashion, adhering to the scope previously decided by the Riigikogu, we can avoid restricting freedom of speech.

Helir-Valdor Seeder

Member of the Riigikogu constitutional committee (Isamaa)

A democratic society respects the right of individuals and the media to express themselves freely. Our current legislation sets out clear boundaries on what kind of use of words is allowed and what is punishable. The argument that the requirement to adopt the law comes from Brussels does not justify changing the system already in place and making it more complicated through additional legislation.
Attempts to pass the hate speech law are a creeping introduction of censorship. The freedom of expression of the people and the media must not be put under ideological pressure. Attitudes and the way people express themselves cannot be determined solely by the law. The state does not need to be given the opportunity to threaten and punish so as to quell fundamental debates. The state cannot dictate to people what and how they can think or speak.
Arbitrary silencing of differing views reduces the personal freedoms of residents of Estonia and increases tensions in society. Freedom of expression in a free society is a fundamental value that must be upheld in both words and deeds.

Maris Lauri

Member of the Riigikogu (Reform Party)

Words carry great power, which is why they must be used wisely and with poise. Freedom of speech, like any other freedom, comes with responsibility, alongside freedom. Generally, people can manage it, including thanks to society's soft influence measures such as disapproval, criticism, and similar. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. Therefore, legal measures are in place also now to address situations where the use of words crosses certain boundaries.
History has shown that, in the worst case, words can be used in a way that has consequences that are totally unacceptable to normal society, even horrific. In order to rule out the possibility of Estonia ever ending up in such use of words, there must also be clear boundaries in Estonian law, beyond which effective punishment would follow.
The debate is about whether the boundaries for the hateful use of words are clearly and sufficiently laid down in Estonia and what the penalties should be for crossing these boundaries. Estonia has also made promises to punish overstepping the boundaries concerning the use of words, as regards some of which it is clear that we'll forgo them, while others are subject to dispute, including legal ones.
There's also a political debate, because there are extremes alongside those who are moderate. There are those who would like there to be no boundaries at all – obviously with the desire to exploit the opportunities this would offer, including by splitting society through hate. And then there are others who believe more in prohibitions and orders than in the ability of citizens and society to set boundaries themselves and to reconcile freedoms with responsibility.

Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

Deputy chair of the Riigikogu legal affairs committee and the European Union affairs committee (Center Party)

Unfortunately, there has yet to be a single example from recent past where a provision of the new hate speech law was necessary. Incitement to hatred is already punishable in our current laws when it leads to specific consequences, such as danger to a person’s life, health, or property. However, the coalition, particularly the Social Democrats, wants to push the boundaries and create the possibility for citizens to be held criminally liable if the «victim» feels offended or frightened. That is, no direct danger or consequence needs to occur. It doesn't take a clairvoyant to see that this would place a significant burden on the police, prosecutors, and courts.
Anyone who feels offended can turn to the police in the expectation that the new law will give them protection and hold someone accountable. What will happen, however, is that a large number of various proceedings will be opened, with the limited resources that we have. While police officers will be trying to figure out whether someone's talk was hateful or not, a situation that poses a real threat may be overlooked.
The lack of legal clarity will automatically pave the ground for restricting freedom of expression. This, in turn, will make people afraid to express their thoughts freely. Fear will also arise in those who have never expressed themselves in a hateful way. It should not be forgotten that historical memory causes a natural aversion in Estonians to any attempts at being muzzled.
In parallel with the hate speech law, a new Law Enforcement Act is also being prepared, which they want to envisage the possibility of banning public meetings already before they begin. Such initiatives must be stopped promptly if we are to defend freedom of expression and a strong civil society.

Eduard Odinets

Member of the Riigikogu constitutional committee (SDE)

The purpose of the law criminalizing hate speech is to provide a sense of security to all people of Estonia. Appeals inciting hate and hatred are, unfortunately, a fairly frequent occurrence in our public debate. This is not a marginal problem, as non-supporters of the bill are trying to argue. People need a sense of security that no matter how different you are, no one has the right to call for hatred of you openly and with impunity. Different groups within society and the individuals belonging to them need protection from hatred, violence, and discrimination. Those who publicly incite hatred, violence, and discrimination – even if no specific act has yet occurred – must be held accountable for their words.
With the development of social media, the emergence of new political forces and the desire for broader freedom of expression, the notion has been spreading in society over the last decade that anyone can say anything about anyone, without any boundaries or fear of being held accountable. We have seen a notion arise that if words are not followed by action, then it's as if no boundaries apply to words.
Yes, we have freedom of speech and self-expression. Yes, we are allowed to criticize, to censure, to exhort. But already the Constitution speaks of not allowing incitement of violence and hatred and its possible punishment. It is precisely incitements to violence and hatred that I see increasingly often in many utterances intended for the public or that have become public. And not in relation to specific people, but to groups of society. Be it immigrants, gays, or people who have differing opinions.
I agree that how exactly to pinpoint the line between freedom of speech and incitement to violence is a potential cause for concern. This line is indeed thin, but the line is similarly thin with other so-called verbal crimes, such as threats, insults, instigation, and similar. Most of us have learned to recognize this boundary, and so have law enforcement agencies and the courts. The same will quite soon happen with incitement to hatred.

Lavly Perling

Chairperson of The Right party

If we want to reduce the backdrop of hate speech or hatred in society, then the addition of more regulations and the transposition of the European Union directive in a form that is not appropriate for the Estonian legal and cultural space is not the solution.
Those who are now «practicing» hate speech will not give it up when new norms are introduced. Unfortunately, it is rather punishment that will have an effect on them. Instigators of hatred must be held accountable, and today's law also provides an opportunity to deal with it. Meanwhile, it is clear that hate speech, i.e. putting someone's life and health at risk with words, is not protected by freedom of expression. Any additional regulation and combining of different bases will begin to reduce the scope of freedom of expression, and this is a dangerous path for society.
Also at present, there is a law in force in Estonia (Penal Code § 151), which says that incitement of hatred, which can also take place through hate speech or hateful talk, is dealt with as a misdemeanor the first time, and as a crime the second time or when a serious consequence occurs.
It remains unclear why, in today's economic situation, where the priority should be people's livelihoods through a sound economy, the survival of businesses, the country's overall broad competitiveness, the government is taking up a substitute activity on a topic that does not need further regulation but has the potential to create significant divisions among people. Whether this reflects ignorance or a deliberate diversion from real issues remains an open question.
In our already over-regulated environment, it could be a value in itself that we only introduce further regulations on what really needs to be regulated. The solution to reducing hate speech lies in bolder implementation of the existing law.