The Communist Origins of Europe’s “Hate Speech” Crisis

Following Vice President JD Vance’s groundbreaking speech at the Munich Security Conference, the world is awakening to the reality that Europe criminalizes peaceful speech. But how did we end up here? The continent did not arrive at these dire straits overnight. Europe’s free speech crisis is the result of a crusade by governing elites that began in the aftermath of World War II.  

Communist states pioneered the speech restrictions behind today’s draconian “hate speech” laws. During the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1947, Western liberal democracies championed robust free speech protections. Communist states, however, fought for language restricting speech—in particular, the speech of their ideological opponent, fascism. As a consequence, Article 19 of the final version approved by the U.N. General Assembly in 1948 guaranteed the freedom of speech, but Article 7 promised a vague right to be protected from “incitement to discrimination”—the precursor to subsequent “hate speech” laws.   

Article 4 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) is the farthest reaching of international laws relating to “hate speech.” Adopted by the General Assembly in 1965, it requires states to undertake “immediate and positive measures designed to eradicate all incitement to, or acts of . . . discrimination.” While the communist representative of Hungary declared that his country would not sign a convention that permitted fascist organizations to operate, the U.S. diplomat maintained that “citizens must still be allowed the right to be wrong.”

The 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) was marked by similar tensions. The final treaty included the following in Article 20(2): “Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.” The countries that voted against this article were all democracies. Conversely, those in favor of prohibiting “hate speech” were all communist, with the exception of Franco’s Spain.  

The regimes of every single one of these communist states have now collapsed, but the language the Soviet bloc forced through has played a significant role in the crisis of speech unfolding today. It is a hideous irony that the liberal democracies that once so vehemently opposed the precursors of modern-day “hate speech” laws have become their most enthusiastic adopters. 

Every European country now has “hate speech” laws, and, in most cases, police enforce them with increasing alacrity. Most Europeans live under the threat of criminal penalties for peaceful expression. In Finland’s criminal code, for instance, “hate speech” falls under the section for “war crimes and crimes against humanity.” This led to the ongoing criminal prosecution of parliamentarian Päivi Räsänen for tweeting a Bible verse.  

Much of the expansion of national laws criminalizing peaceful expression has been driven by pressure from international institutions. The links are often direct and immediate. In a striking example, the U.N. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, tasked with monitoring the implementation of the covenant by the same name, said in its 2008 report to Austria: 

While welcoming the fact that the state party is in the process of reviewing its Criminal Code, especially section 283 related to the offence of incitement to racial discrimination, the Committee expresses its concern about the restrictive nature of its provisions, which are limited to acts that endanger public order and which are committed against individuals who are members of ethnic groups. The Committee encourages the state party to complete the review of its Criminal Code and to extend the scope of section 283. 

Austria responded by changing its law to criminalize “verbally harassing a group in a manner that infringes human dignity.”  

The ambiguous definition of “hate speech” has led to broadly inconsistent and ideologically motivated enforcement. The European Court of Human Rights even acknowledged in 2012 that there “is no universally accepted definition of the expression ‘hate speech.’” A 2015 UNESCO manual likewise admitted, “the possibility of reaching a universally shared definition seems unlikely.” 

The ambiguity is strategic. Labeling speech as “hate speech” is an effective tool for silencing controversial views and shutting down debate. The result is the climate of pervasive censorship evident across Europe today.  

Vance’s remarks in Munich have thrust the dark reality of European censorship into the light. In response, Germany’s Chancellor Olaf Scholz doubled down, claiming that European democracies “are founded on the historic awareness and realization that democracies can be destroyed by radical anti-democrats,” and thus require tools to “defend themselves against their enemies.”

When encountering false justifications for “hate speech” laws, let us not forget the origins of European censorship. The communist nations that fought for restrictions on speech in international law certainly did not foster model societies—discrimination and injustice were rife, and state censorship coincided with state violence. Why then has Europe allowed their legacy to govern its contemporary understanding of speech? Modern supporters of “hate speech” laws may have more altruistic ambitions than their original authoritarian proponents, but the goal is the same: consolidation of power in the hands of the state. Europe must cast off this insidious communist legacy and recommit to the fundamental freedoms that undergird true democracy. 

Foto:Fortepan / Nagy Gyula. Image cropped.