By Majlinda Bregu
Just a few days ago, the Council of Europe made it crystal clear: hate speech is not a protected form of freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This is a landmark decision—one that restores the delicate balance between two principles often clashing in public and digital spaces: freedom of expression and the dignity of the individual.
Article 10 is a cornerstone of free speech protection. But it is not absolute. It explicitly allows for restrictions when expression:
– violates the reputation or rights of others,
– constitutes hate speech or incitement to violence,
– or threatens public order in a democratic society.
In essence, European law protects speech, not insult. It embraces criticism, not degradation.
🕰️ A brief flashback: Albania, 2015.
At a time when few dared to enter the murky terrain of online comments, I proposed a simple—but essential—amendment to the Civil Code:
That online platform administrators be held legally accountable when they allow hate speech in their comments sections—content that attacks dignity, identity, and personal reputation—recognizing reputational damage as serious harm requiring legal remedy beyond mere words.
Accountability for online media is now becoming a cornerstone for balancing freedom and responsibility.
Today, the Council of Europe and the European Court of Human Rights have moved decisively toward implementing “notice and takedown” mechanisms for online hate speech.
The EU Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA and subsequent European Parliament resolutions—like the one from January 2024—have strengthened criminal sanctions against incitement and hate crimes.
Back in 2015, I didn’t ask for censorship. I asked for accountability—for the removal of unworthy and dehumanizing comments.
Now, that same logic has become embedded in Europe’s evolving legal framework.
I wasn’t attacking freedom—I was defending human dignity in an increasingly hostile environment, especially for women, victims of violence, dissenting voices, and public figures.
But instead of reflection, the debate I attempted to spark became a barrage of attacks.
Some accused me of reviving the infamous article on Agitation and Propaganda from the dictatorship era.
Others, who had elevated “freedom of expression” to a kind of dogma, denounced me as a threat to democracy.
And the most zealous—the paid trolls employed from the political margins (mine included)—launched an offensive to fulfill their daily quota of paid-for slander.
The proposal was blocked in Parliament.
And now?
Now, more than a decade later, European institutions, especially the European Court of Human Rights, are embracing the very principle that was once mocked as a “threat.”
✅ Yes, platforms are now expected to take responsibility.
✅ Yes, hate speech demands punishment—not tolerance.
✅ Yes, freedom of expression ends where verbal violence and humiliation begin.
These are no longer individual ideals. They are the new democratic standards of Europe.
Justice may delay—but it never forgets.
I know what it feels like to stand for a principle—and to stand alone.
I know what it’s like to defend something fundamental, even as you’re showered with insults and scapegoated.
But I also know this: when time speaks for you, you no longer need to defend yourself.
If I had to go back?
Yes, I’d propose it again.
But today, it’s enough that the courts have a decision in hand—and a standard that can be implemented with ease.
Because freedom without responsibility is not democracy—it’s chaos.
And dignity is not optional—it is a duty for any society that dares to call itself civil.