Hate speech

Avv. Nicola Canestrini Ciclo di Seminari Living Integration laws

13 mggio 2016, UNITN

art. 21 Costituzione

«pietra angolare del sistema democratico»

(Corte Costituzionale 19.02.1965, n.9; 17.4.1969, n.84)

«fondamento della democrazia»

(Corte cost. n. 172 del 1972)

«il più alto, forse dei diritti fondamentali» (Corte cost. n. 138 del 1985)

libera manifestazione del pensiero

convenzioni internazionali

art. 19 Dichiarazione universale dei diritti

dell’uomo 1948

art. 10 CEDU

art. 19 Patto internazionale sui diritti

civili e politici 1966

art. 11 Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell’U.E.

libertà di manifestazione del

pensiero

diritto fondamentale del singolo

diritto sociale per “l’effettiva partecipazione di tutti i lavoratori

all’organizzazione politica, economica e sociale del Paese” (art.

3/2, Cost.).

(Corte cost. n. 138 del 1985)

dimensione individuale e sociale

indice fondamentale per misurare il grado di democraticità di un

sistema politico

“fondamento della società democratica”

(cfr. Corte EDU Kokkinakis v. Greece of 25 May 1993, Series A no. 260-A,

p. 17, para. 31).

fino a quando si adegua a determinate convenzioni.

Joseph Goebbels, Ministro della Propaganda del III Reich, 1937

L’arte è libera e deve mantenersi libera

anche se non si adegua a

determinate convenzioni.

Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 1976 Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria 1994 Jersild c. Danimarca 1994 (..)

L’espressione del pensiero è libera e deve

mantenersi libera freedom of expression (..) s

applicable not only to "information" or "ideas" that are favourably received or

regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that shock, offend or disturb the State or any sector of the population. Such are the

demands of that pluralism, tolerance and

broadmindedness without which there is no "democratic

society"

“... [T]olerance and respect for the equal dignity of all human beings constitute the foundations of a

democratic, pluralistic society. That being so, as a matter of principle it may be considered necessary in certain democratic societies to sanction or even

prevent all forms of expression which spread, incite, promote or justify hatred based on

intolerance ..., provided that any ‘formalities’, ‘conditions’, ‘restrictions’ or ‘penalties’ imposed are

proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.” (Erbakan v. Turkey ECHR judgment of 6 July

2006, § 56)

“Feindstrafrecht”

libertà di espressione art. 10 ECHR

tolleranza / rispetto

artt. 10/2, 17 ECHR

“[T]here is no doubt that any remark directed against the Convention’s underlying values would be removed from the protection of Article 10 [freedom of expression] by Article 17 [prohibition of abuse of rights] (...)”

Seurot v. France, ECHR decision on the admissibility of 18 May 2004)

“Feindstrafrecht”

confermata in appello ottobre 2015, pende Cassazione

 It is true we no longer put heretics to death; and the amount of penal infliction which modern feeling would probably tolerate, even against the most obnoxious opinions, is not

sufficient to extirpate them. But let us not flatter ourselves that we are yet free from the stain even of legal persecution.

Penalties for opinion, or at least for its expression, still exist by law; and their enforcement is not, even in these times, so

unexampled as to make it at all incredible that they may some day be revived in full force.

 John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1869

libertà di espressione vs. tolleranza

la cattive idee si sconfiggono con la repressione?

la cattive idee si sconfiggono con la

buone idee

.. e il silenzio è complice

Our decision is a reaffirmation of the principles of freedom and inclusiveness that the flag best

reflects, and of the conviction that our toleration of criticism [..] is a sign and source of our strength.

US Supreme Court, Texas v. Johnson, 1989

www.canestriniLex.comt @canestrinilex  g+ +canestrinilex f canestrinilex