Faculty of Applied Political Science

State University Higher School of Economics

The Program of Discipline

Free Expression and Hate Speech

Author: Anita Soboleva, Associate Professor, Candidate of Philological Sciences, Member of the Bar Association

2009 Explanatory Note

The goal of the course is to provide future key actors - political scientists, politicians, lawyers, social scientists – with information on contemporary trends in the freedom of expression, to explain the role of communication in a democratic society, to show the importance of political speech and free exchange of views on matters of public concern for the promotion of democracy, to present national and international solutions to the problems of freedom of expression and to describe some of the contemporary attempts to protect or to undermine freedom of expression by employing legal techniques and ways to overcome obstacles for freedom of expression by using national and international legal instruments.

Summary of the course: The program includes analysis of doctrines of free speech, free expression, freedom of information and basic approaches to regulation of these freedoms in different legal systems in correlation with commonly accepted restrictions, which may be imposed on them for the protection of public security, health, morals or rights and dignity of third persons. Freedom of expression doctrine of the European Court of Human Rights is reconstructed from case-study and exemplified by recent cases, including those against Russian Federation. However, the main emphasis will be made on possible solutions of the conflict between free expression and necessity to combat religious, ethnic, national hatred and prevent violent hate crimes. The problem is considered in legal, political, historic, social context with examples from different countries and jurisdictions, including UN, Council of Europe and OSCE approaches to its regulation. The most sensitive types of speech, which may provoke disagreement in public opinion or prosecution in criminal or civil procedure, are analyzed in more detail, namely blasphemy, academic freedoms, artistic freedom, government criticism, reputation of political leaders, electoral speech, obscene and insulting speech, speech in the classroom, public demonstration of Nazi signs and symbols, incitement to hatred in Internet etc. .

The requirements to the students: For enrollment to this course the students must have knowledge in the following areas: - Basic concepts of fundamental rights and freedoms - Russian constitutional law - Comparative analysis of political systems - Political philosophy

Upon completion of the course the students must have:

Knowledge of: - basic political and legal doctrines of free speech, free expression and freedom of the press - interrelation between notions of free speech, freedom of expression, freedom of the press in different legal cultures - approaches to regulation of free expression in different legal systems and on international level - commonly excepted restrictions on free expression and their application in practice in conformity with international standards - tests and standards developed by the European Court of Human Rights in case law on freedom of expression (art. 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights) - possible solutions of the conflicts between free expression and other constitutionally protected values - legal regulation of freedom of information and freedom of speech in the Russian legal and political system in historical, comparative and contemporary perspective

Competence: The students must be able to analyze disputes and conflicts in the area of free speech and freedom of expression, to be able to draw a balance between freedom of expression and other fundamental values, to distinguish between obscenity, personal attacks and criticism, to tell facts from value-judgments and opinion, to use linguistic expertise in legal and political analysis of the cases, to analyze types of ‘forbidden’ speech, to evaluate certain types of speech as containing extremist appeals, to distinguish between extremist speech and critical or unpopular views on sensitive issues.

Skills: - to analyze basic concepts of freedom of expression and related freedoms from political and legal perspective - to analyze cases with freedom of expression problems from the Russian political life and propose solutions, based on Russian and international legal standards - to provide expert review of legislation that may affect media freedoms and other forms of freedom of expression - to distinguish between different categories of speech and define the level of their protection depending on the goal, content and form of speech - to draw a line between hate speech, incitement to hatred and non-violent types of speech and be capable of providing reasoning in expert evaluation - to identify obstacles for free expression in administrative, legislative, judicial practice and suggest solutions

Forms of control: - current control – based on class participation and case law study - intermediate control – written analysis of the hypothetic cases (1 essay) - final control – open-book written exam in class (3 hours)

All forms of the current and intermediate control are estimated by 10-grade scale. For an estimation of relative importance of separate kinds of the current and intermediate control their weights are entered (Wi). So that - Wi=1 (weight of class participation, control works = 0,1; report = 0,2; weight of a written analysis = 0,5). It is taken into account: an estimation for participation in discussion Х1; estimation for reports – Х2 and X3; essay – Х4, estimation for examination - Y. There is an average weighted estimation of the separate forms of the current and intermediate control: Х=W1*X1+W2*X2+W2*X3+W3*X4, which is approximated up to whole units. Final estimation: МАХ [X:Y]

Availability of Resources: Articles and court decisions marked in the program by (*) are available from the lecturer by request. Books, marked by (*), are available for reading at the Chair of Public Policy. Books, marked by (**), are available in the Legal Resource Center of the Russian State Library for Foreign Literature (VGBIL). Structure of the Course in the Curriculum

№ Topic Hours /Total Class work Self-preparation

Lectures Seminars

1 Philosophical Foundations of 2 2 0 6 Freedom of Speech. Historical Origins of the Speech and Press Clauses in Different Legal and Political Systems. 2 Freedom of Expression as an 2 2 0 6 Uncontested Value Against Other Values in Liberal Democracies: International Standards. Privacy and Freedom of Expression. Defamation: libel and slander.

3 Freedom of Expression in the 4 4 0 8 American Political and Legal system. Hate speech regulation in the USA 4 Freedom of Speech in European 8 4 2 10 legal and political systems. Hate speech regulation in European countries. 5 Freedom of Expression According 4 2 2 8 to the European Court of Human Rights: General Tests 6 Political Speech and Political 4 4 0 10 Views.

7 Hate Speech, Advocacy of Crime, 16 4 2 10 and “Sensitive Speech”: Legal Regulation in Comparative Perspective 8 Religion and Free Speech 10 4 0 6

9 Administration of Justice and 14 2 2 10 Impartiality of Judiciary

10 Constitutional Standards, Legal and 2 0 2 2 Political Context for Freedom of Expression in Russia

11 Hate Speech in Russian Context 10 2 2 6 Total 162 42 18 102 Part I. Free speech and free expression: basic concepts and international standards

Textbook: Andras Sajo. Freedom of expression. Warsaw, 2004

Basic literature: Wojciech Sadurski. Freedom of Speech and its Limits. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1999. Eric Barendt. Freedom of Speech. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1987. Eric Barendt. Broadcasting Law: A Comparative Study. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1993. Mark W.Janis, Richard S.Kay, and Anthony W.Bradley. Europen Human Rights Law. Oxfrod University Press, 1995 (Russian edition: Марк Дженис, Ричард Кэй, Энтони Брэдли. Европейское право в области прав человека: практика и комментарии. Москва – Будапешт, 1997, сс. 179-256). Article XIX. Freedom of Expression Handbook. London: Article 19, International Center Against Censorship, 1993. ARTICLE XIX "Press Law and Practice. A Comparative Study of Press Freedom in European and other Democracies" (1994).

1. Philosophical Foundations of Freedom of Speech. Historical Origins of the Speech and Press Clauses in different legal and political systems.

The theory of free speech. The “search for truth in the marketplace of ideas”, “self- expression/individual autonomy”, “self-governance”, “restrictions on the state” doctrines and other justifications. “Freedom of speech” and “freedom of expression”: understanding in the American and European legal and political doctrines. Political and legal context of freedom of expression. The struggle for freedom of the press as the struggle against censorship and licensing, secular and religious oppression. Notion of “censorship” as prior restraint or the authorization to publish. Prior restraint systems v. subsequent systems of free speech regulation (=restraining measures after publication). New understanding of censorship in contemporary context.

Literature: Andras Sajo. Freedom of expression. Warsaw, 2004, pp. 13-25. Alexander Meiklejohn. Free Speech and its Relation to Self-Government. 1948. *Alexander Meiklejohn. Political Freedom. The Constitutional Power of People. New York: Harper, 1960, pp. 24-28. Thomas Scalnon. A Theory of Freedom of Expression // Philosophy & Public Affairs, 1974, vol. 1, pp. 204-226. Frederick Schauer. Free Speech: A Philosophical Enquiry. Cambridge University Press, 1982.

Additional readings: John Bagnell Bury. A History of Freedom of Thought. 1913. James Paterson. The Liberty of the Press, Speech and Public Worship. 1880. R.H.Coase. The Market for Goods and the Market for Ideas // 64 American Economic Review, 1974, pp. 384-390. R.Kent Greenawalt. Free Speech Justifications // 89 Colum. Law Review 119, 1989. Gerald Gunther. Learned Hand and the Origins of Modern First Amendment Doctrine: Some Fragments of History // 27 Stanford Law Review, 1975, pp. 719-761. Jozef Raz. Free Expression and Personal Identification // 11 Oxford J.Leg.Stud. 303, 1991. *Thomas I. Emerson. Toward a General Theory of the First Amendment // 72 Yale Law Journal, 1963, pp. 877-887. Judith Lichtenberg, ed. Democracy and the Mass Media. 1990. Phina Lahav. Holmes and Brandeis: Libertarian and Republican Justifications for Free Speech // 4 Journal of Law & Politics 451, 1988.

2. Freedom of expression as an uncontested value against other values in liberal democracies: international standards. Privacy and Freedom of Expression. Defamation: libel and slander.

Freedom of expression and its limits in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (art.19), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (art. 19), the European Convention on human rights and fundamental freedoms (art. 10). Main conflicts between free speech and other fundamental values in liberal democracies. Differences among constitutional free speech systems in relation to the level of respect required by government, the respect for other rights and the sensitivity of the people. Legitimate restrictions and illegal obstacles for free expression in a democratic society. Libel, slander and defamation: definitions. Malice. Privacy. Private life of public figures and the press. Prohibition of group libel claims. Special protection of political speech. Open discussion on issues of public concern.

Documents: Universal Declaration of Human Rights (art.19), 1948 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (art. 19), 1966 European Convention on human rights and fundamental freedoms (art. 10).

Cases for analysis in class: Albert Womah Mukong v. Cameroon, Communication No. 458/1991 (UN Doc) Ballantyne, Davidson, McIntyre v. Canada, Communications Nos. 359/1989 and 385/1989, UN Doc. Kivenmaa v. Finland (Human Rights Committee Views on Communication 412/1990) Tae Hoon Park v. Republic of Korea (Human Rights Committee Communication 628/1995)

Textbooks: Andras Sajo. Freedom of expression. Warsaw, 2004, pp. 13-25. Mark W.Janis, Richard S.Kay, and Anthony W.Bradley. Europen Human Rights Law. Oxfrod University Press, 1995 (Russian edition: Марк Дженис, Ричард Кэй, Энтони Брэдли. Европейское право в области прав человека: практика и комментарии. Москва – Будапешт, 1997, сс. 179-256). Michele de Salvia. Precedents of the European Court of Human Rights: leading proncip[les of Judicial Practice Relevant to the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Juficial Practice from 1960 to 2002. (Russian edition: Микеле де Сальвиа. Прецеденты Европейского Суда по правам человека. Руководящие принципы судебной практики, относящейся к Европейской Конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод. Судебная практика с 1960 по 2002 г. Научное редактирование Ю.Ю.Берестнева. – Сс. 619-688). *Прецедентные дела Комитета по правам человека. Сост. Pайя Хански и Мартин Шейнин. Ун-т Або Академи (Турку), 2004. – СС. 279-331. Y.K. Tyagi. The law and Practice of the UN Human Rights Committee. Dordrecht:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1993. Kirsten Young. The Law and Process of the U.N. Human Rights Committee. Ardsley, NY: Transnational Publishers. 2002.

Additional readings: *Martin H.Redish. The Value of Free Speech // University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 1982 *Правовое пространство свободы прессы. Под ред А.К.Соболевой. М.: Новая юстиция, 2008.

3. Freedom of expression in the American political and legal system. Hate speech regulation in the USA.

First Amendment. The Sedition Act of 1798. Libel law, political criticism and the reputation of politicians: the New York Times v. Sullivan rule. Prohibition of content regulation. The “clear and present danger” test. Whitney v. California, Dennis v. United States, Brandenburg v. Ohio. . Categories of protected and unprotected speech. Balancing process in defamation cases. Symbolic speech. United States v. O’Brien. Time, place, or manner restrictions (the TMP doctrine). Procedural components of free speech protection: overbreadth, vagueness, prior restraint. Privacy concerns and free speech. Hate speech. Broadcasting: absence of government-sponsored broadcasting, importance of mass-media in politics, licensing, personal attacks in press, political editorials. Red Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission. Unprotected speech. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire.

Cases for analysis in class: Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927) New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) R.A.V. (a minor) v. City of St.Paul, Minnesota, 505 U.S. 377, 1992. Red Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, 395 U.S. 367; 1969.

Textbooks: Andras Sajo. Freedom of expression. Warsaw, 2004, pp. 26-41. John H.Garvey & Frederick Schauer. The First Amendment: A Reader. West Publishing Co., 1992. *Geoffrey R. Stone, Louis M.Seidman, Cass R. Sunstein, Mark V. Tushnet. Constitutional law. Sec. ed., Little, Brown and Company, Boston-Toronto-London,1991, pp. 1011-1455.

Additional readings: **Free Expression in America: A documentary History. Ed. By Shalld Suess Kennedy. Greenwood press, 1999. Zechariah Chafee. Free Speech in the United States. 1942. E.Hudon. Freedom of Speech and Press in America. 1963 Leonard Levy. Emergence of a Free Press. 1985, pp. 183-186, 198-205, 262-267. Leonard Levy. Legacy and Suppression: Freedom of Speech and Press in Early American History. 1960 Walter Burns. The First Amendment and the Future of American Democracy. Basic Books Inc. 1977. Lee C.Bollinger. The Tolerant Society: Freedom of Speech and Extremist Speech in America. Oxford University Press, 1986. C.Edwin Baker. Scope of the First Amendment Freedom of Speech. UCLA Law Review 964 (1978). John Hart Ely. Flag Desecration: A Case Study in the Roles of Categorization and Balancing in First Amendment Analysis // 88 Harvard Law Review, 1975, pp. 1482-1502. Robert C.Post. The Constitutional Concept of Public Discourse: Outrageous Opinion, Democratic Deliberation and Hustler Magazine v. Falwell // Harvard Law Review, 1990 Robert C. Post. The Social Foundations of Defamation Law: Reputation and the Constitution // California Law Review, vol. 74 No. 3 (May 1986), pp. 691-742. Frederick Shauer. Slippery Slopes // Harvard Law Review, 1985 Geoffrey R.Stone. Content Regulation and the First Amendment // Northwestern University Law Review, vol. 81, issue 1 (1986), pp. 168-172. William Mayton. Seditious Libel and the Lost Guarantee of a Freedom of Expression // 84 Column. Law Review 91 (1984). Edward F.White. The Debt of Constitutional Law to Jehovah’s Witnesses // 28 Minn. Law Review, 209 (1944). * Hans A.Linde. “Clear and Present Danger” Reexanined: Dissonance in the Brandenburg Concerto // 22 Stan. Law Review, 1970, pp. 11163-1179. * Susan H.Williams. Content Discrimination and the First Amendment // 139 U.Pa.L.Rev. 1991, pp. 636-654.

4. Freedom of Speech in European legal and political systems. Hate speech regulation in European countries. The nature of the right to free expression in English law. Prior restraint. Protection of reputation: defamation. The history of the law of defamation. The common law crime of seditious libel. Libel, slander and defamation: definitions. Malice. Definition of “publication”. Special protection of political speech. Media regulation and censorship. Open discussion on issues of public concern. Parliamentary speech privilege. Privacy. Comment on court proceedings: contempt of court. Freedom of expression and the criminal law. Expression and government secrecy. Press rights. Fair comments as defense. Prohibition of group libel claims. Absence of legal standing for government bodies in defamation claims. Derbyshire County Council v. Times Newspapers Ltd. (1993) .Private life of public figures and the press. Obscenity and indecency. The impact of Community law and the law under the European Convention on regulation of free speech in England.

French Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen (1789), the Constitution (1958) and the Freedom of Press Act (1881). “The free communication of ideas and opinions”. The French understanding of the freedom of press. Distinction in legal regulation of press, broadcasting and film industry. Privacy and non-discrimination as higher values. Limits of press freedom. Different limits for different types of speech: parliamentary debates, good faith commentaries, reporting judicial affairs, defamatory statements. Defamation of public officials and public bodies. Defamation of persons or groups of persons on grounds of ethnicity, nationality, religion.. Criminal and civil libel. “Good faith” as a defense in defamation cases (except for matters that concern private life). Rectification. A right to respond. Protection of privacy. Crimes committed through speech acts: discrediting judicial decisions, insulting public authorities, group libel. Regulation of broadcasting: balance between private and public broadcasting. Independent public control over broadcasting: The High Council of Audio-Visual Affairs.

German Basic Law: art. 5 and its specificity. Role of the German Constitutional Court in creating judicial standards for the analysis of the free speech cases. The doctrine of an objective order of values as applied to weighing the rights of speech against other legally protected interests. Individual and social dimensions of speech. Luth Case. Prohibition of speech advocating Nazism and militarism. Doctrine of “militant democracy” and ban on speech for any person who abuses freedom of speech “in order to combat the free democratic basic order”. Free formation of public opinion as a constitutional value v. a value of honor. Protection of emotional language in expressing political views and counterattack theory of speech in Schmid-Spiegel Case. Private Rights and Freedom of Information. Blinkfüer Case. Speech, democracy and rational discourse: The Picture Postcard Case, Campaign Slur Case, Offical Propoganda Case. Opinion versus fact. The right to demonstrate as an aspect of freedom of opinion. The right to a free press as a separate and independent freedom. Spiegel Case. The rights and responsibilities of the press. Broadcasting: First Television Case Speech, personhood and social morality..Böll Case, Nudist Magazine Case. Artistic and academic freedom.Mephisto Case. Street Theatre Case. Content-based restrictions: hate speech. Holocaust Denial case.

Textbook: Mark W.Janis, Richard S.Kay, and Anthony W.Bradley. Europen Human Rights Law. Oxfrod University Press, 1995 (Russian edition: Марк Дженис, Ричард Кэй, Энтони Брэдли. Европейское право в области прав человека: практика и комментарии. Москва – Будапешт, 1997, сс. 192-196, 220-225). Andras Sajo. Freedom of expression. Warsaw, 2004, pp. 42-54. Andras Sajo. Freedom of expression. Warsaw, 2004, pp. 55-71. *Donald Kommers. The Constitutional Jurisprudence of the Federal Republic of Germany. Duke University Press, pp. 367-443.

Cases for analysis in class: Observer and Guardian v. United Kingdom (Spycatcher’s Case). Judgment of 26 November 1991 (№ 216), 14 E.H.R.R. 153 Tolstoy-Miloslavsky v. United Kingdom. Judgment of 13 July 1995, ECHR, series A No 323.

Robert Faurisson v. France, Human Rights Committee (United Nations). UN Doc. CCPR/C/58/D/550/1993 (1996) Fressoz and Roire v. France. ECHR, Judgment of 21 January 1999. Giniewsky v. France. ECHR, Application № 64016/00

Cases for analysis in class: *Luth Case (1958). 7BVerfGE 198 (Constitutional Court) *Blinkfüer Case (1969) 25 BVerfGE 256 * Campaign Slur Case (1982) 61 BVerfGE I * Spiegel Case (1966) 20 BVerfGE 162 * Böll Case (1980) 54 BVerfGE 208 *Mefisto Case (1971) 30 BverfGE 173

Additional Readings: David Feldman. Civil Liberties and Human Rights in England and Wales. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993, pp. 633-634. William M.Clyde. The struggle for the freedom of the press from Caxton to Cromwell. 1934. Alec Craig. The Banned Books of England and Other Countries. 1962. Frederick Siebert. Freedom of the Press in England 1476-1776. 1952 W. Prosser. Handbook of the Law of Torts (4 th ed.), 1971, pp. 790-800. *Правовое пространство свободы прессы (под ред. А.Соболевой). М., 2008, сс. 57-68. Brice Dickson (ed.) Human Rights and the European Convention: The Effects of the Convention on the United Kingdom and Ireland. London: Sweet and Maxwell, 1997. Stephen Grosz, Jack Beatson, Peter Duffy. Human Rights. The 1998 Act and the European Convention. London: Sweet and Maxwell, 2000, pp. 88-98.

Reporters Without Borders, France – Annual Reports Jeanne M.Hauch. Protecting Private Facts in France: The Warren & Brandeis Tort Is Alive and Well and Flourishing in Paris // Tulane Law Review, 1994, vol. 68, p. 1219. Robert Badinter. Le droit au respect de la vie priveé // 42 J.C.P.I. 1968, No. 2136. The Article XIX Freedom of Expression Handbook. London: Article 19, International Center Against Censorship, 1993. Ronald P. Sokol. Freedom of Expression in France: The Mitterand Dr. Gubler Affair // Tulane Journal of International and Comparative Law, Spring 1999, pp. 5-36. **Gaston Vogel. Droit de la Presse. Editions Promoculture, 2000. ** Alexis Guedi. La Protection des sources journalistiques. Bruylant, Bruxelles. 1998.

Peter Humpfreys. The Goal of Pluralism and the Ownership Rules for Private Broadcasting in Germany: Re-Regulation or De-Regulation? // Vol. 16 Cardozo Arts and Entertainment Law Journal, 1998, p. 527.

5. Freedom of Expression According to the European Court of Human Rights: general tests

The meaning of ‘expression’ according to the European Court of Human Rights. Construction of art. 10 of the ECHR: provisional grounds for restriction and their interpretation by the Court, ‘duties and responsibilities’ clause, ‘necessity in a democratic society’ clause. Court’s approach to legal analysis of free speech cases: concepts of ‘interference’, ‘pressing social need’, ‘margin of appreciation’. Handyside v. United Kingdom. The test applied: restriction prescribed by law, legitimate aims of restriction and its limits, necessity in a democratic society. Press and political criticism. Public figure. Public servants. Authority and impartiality of judiciary. Censorship. Protection of reputation. Facts and opinions. Private and family life. Public morals. Hate speech. Broadcasting: licensing, specificity of audio- and videomaterials. Artistic freedoms. Muller and Others v. Switzerland.

Cases for analysis in class: Lingens v. Austria. Decision of 8 July 1986 (№ 103), E.H.R.R. 103 Castells v. Spain. Judgment of 23 April, 1992. De Haes and Gijsels v. Belgium. Judgment of 24 February 1997. Handyside v. United Kingdom. Judgment of 7 December 1976 (№ 24), 1 E.H.R.R. 737 Muller and Others v. Switzerland. Judgment of 24 May 1988 (№ 130), 13 E.H.H.R, 212 Oberschlick v. Austria,. Judgment of 23 May 1991.

Textbooks: Andras Sajo. Freedom of expression. Warsaw, 2004, pp. 72-114. Mark W.Janis, Richard S.Kay, and Anthony W.Bradley. Europen Human Rights Law. Oxfrod University Press, 1995 (Russian edition: Марк Дженис, Ричард Кэй, Энтони Брэдли. Европейское право в области прав человека: практика и комментарии. Москва – Будапешт, 1997, сс. 179-256). Michele de Salvia. Precedents of the European Court of Human Rights: leading proncip[les of Judicial Practice Relevant to the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Juficial Practice from 1960 to 2002. (Russian edition: Микеле де Сальвиа. Прецеденты Европейского Суда по правам человека. Руководящие принципы судебной практики, относящейся к Европейской Конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод. Судебная практика с 1960 по 2002 г. Научное редактирование Ю.Ю.Берестнева. – Сс. 619-688).

Additional Readings: R. St. McDonald, J. The Margin of Appreciation in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights // International Law at the Times of its Codification.: Essays in Honor of Roberto Ago. 1987, pp. 187-207.

Part II. Classes (categories) of speech: distinction in regulation, protection, limits and search for balance (Speech by Subject)

6. Political speech and political views

The value of political speech v. non-political speech. What is covered by political speech as a type of speech with special protection. Parliamentary debates. Evaluation of government’s performance, criticism, propaganda. Debate on public issues. Definition of ‘public’ and ‘public concern’. Public figure. The value of dissent: Connick v. Myers (US). Public figure. Case law of the European Court of Human Rights on the role of free political discussion for the development of democracy.

Case law:

Connick v. Myers. 461 U.S. 138, 1983. Dichand v. Austria. Judgment of 26 February 2002. Lingens v. Austria, Judgment of 8 July 1986 (№ 103) 8 E.H.R.R. Thorgeir Thorgeirson v. Iceland. Castells v. Spain, application № 11798/85, Judgment of 23 April 1992 Feldek v. Slovakia. ECHR, Judgment of 12 July 2001. Obershclick v. Austria. ECHR, Judment of 1 July 1997.`

Textbooks: Andras Sajo. Freedom of expression. Warsaw, 2004.

Additional Readings: * Robert H. Bork. Neutral Principles and Some First Amendment Problems // 47 Ind. Law Journal 1, 1971, pp. 20-28. * Robert C.Post. The Constitutional Concept of Public Discourse: Outrageous Opinion, Democratic Deliberation and Hustler Magazine v. Falwell // 103 Harv. Law Review, 1990, pp. 601-684. Lillian BeVier. The First Amendment and Political Speech: An Inquiry Into the Substance and Limits of Principle // 30 Stan. Law Review 299, 1978. Edward J.Bloustein. The Origin, Validity, and Interrelationships of the Political Values Served by Freedom of Expression // 33 Rutgers Law Review 372, 1981. Steven Shiffrin. Government Speech // 27 UCLA Law Review 565, 1980. 7. Hate Speech, Advocacy of Crime, and “Sensitive Speech”: Legal Regulation in Comparative Perspective

Hatred for some group as the only goal of hate speech. Racist propaganda, display of swastika and other Nazi symbols, cross-burning, calls for violence, negation of Holocoust and other types of non-protected expression in the European legal system. The US approach to racist speech. Hate speech and hate crimes: problems in differentiation. Expressions encouraging criminal actions and provocative comments. Gitlow v. New York. Disclosures of facts that provide incentives to commit crimes or aid in their commission. Advocacy of crime. Brandenburg v. Ohio (US), Stanislav Dmitrievskiy’s Case (Russia). Incitement to violence and admissible criticism: standards and tests to draw a line. Practice of the European Court of Human Rights: Isak Tepe v. Turkey, Kanat and Bozan v. Turkey, Salinhoglu v. Turkey, Saygili and Falakaoglu v. Turkey, Unay v. Turkey (decisions of the ECHR of October, 2008). Russian Extremism Law and Free Expression.

Case law for analysis in class: *Village of Skokie v. National Socialist Party of America, 51 III. App. 3d 279, 290; 1977. Isak Tepe v. Turkey, ECHR, application № 17129/02 Terentyev v. Russia Karman v. Russia *Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) *Gitlow v. New York. 268 U.S. 652, 670 (1925) Erdoğdu et ince c. Turkue, judgment of 8 July 1999 Pavel Ivanov v. Russia, application # 35222/04

Additional Readings: *Lee C.Bollinger. The Tolerant Society: Freedom of Speech and Extremist Speech in America. Oxford University Press, 1986, pp. 120-136.. *Kent Greenawalt. Speech and Crime, 1980 // Reprinted in: John H.Garvey & Frederick Schauer. The First Amendment: A Reader. West Publishing Co., 1992, pp. 36-43. * David A.Strauss. Why be Tolerant? // 53 U.Chi. Law Review, 1986, pp. 1485-1506. Steven D.Smith. The Restoration of Tolerance // 78 Calif. Law Review, 1990, pp. 334-338. Mari J. Matsuda. Public Response to Racist Speech: Considering the Victims’ Story. Michigan Law Review

8. Religion and Free Speech.

Religious views and public morals. Case-law of the European Court of Human Rights: Otto- Preminger-Institut v. Austria, Kokkinakis v. Greece, Wingrove v . The United Kingdom . Blasphemous publications. Secular state and regulation of wearing visual signs of belonging to religion in public space: French and Turkish experience. OSCE Manual on the Wearing of Religious Symbols in Public Areas.

Cases for analysis in class: Giniewsky v. France Kokkinakis v. Greece. Judgment of 25 May 1993, application number 00014307/88. Wingrove v. The United Kingdom (19/1995/525/611) 25 November 1996 Otto-Peminger-Institute v. Austria

Additional Readings: Anita Soboleva. Tell me, who is your enemy… // International Journal for the Semiotics of Law (2007) 20: 263-283. Donald A.Gianella. Religious Liberty, Nonestablishment, and Doctrinal Development. Part II. The Nonestablishment Principle. Harward Law Review, 1968 John H.Garvey. Free Exercise and the Values of Religious Liberty Connecticut Law Review Phillip E.Johnson. Concepts and Compromise in First Amendment Religious Doctrine. California Law Review Inc/ Vol. 72 No. 5 (Sept. 1984), pp. 817-846. Douglas Laycock. Formal, Substantive, and Disaggregated Neutrality Toward Religion. 1990 Robert C.Post. Racist Speech, Democracy and the First Amendment. Geoffrey R/Stone. The Equal Access Controversy: The Religion Clauses and the Meaning of “Neutrality” // William and Mary Law Review David A.Strauss. Why be Tolerant? // University of Chicago Law Review

9. Administration of Justice and Impartiality of Judiciary Restrictions on free expression in the interest of administration of justice. Authority and impartiality of judiciary as a legitimate restriction on freedom of expression. Freedom of the press and judicial power. Sunday Times v. United Kingdom . Criticism of judges, judicial process and judicial decisions. Prager and Oberschlick v. Austria, Barford v. Denmark, Katrami v. Greece. Freedom of expression of judges. Kudeshkina v. Russia. Reporting courts. Criticism of judicial system by trial lawyers. Contant v. France.

Cases for analysis in class: Sunday Times v. United Kingdom. Judgment of 26 April 1979 (№ 30), 2 E.H.R.R. 245 Contant v. France Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252 (1941) Rachinov v. Bulgaria, ECHR, Judgment of 20 April 2006, application 47479/99 De Haes and Gijsels v. Belgium, ECHR, Judgment of 24 February, 1997 Prager and Oberschlick v. Austria, Judgment of 22 March 1995, application 15974/90 Lomakin v. Russia. ECHR. Decision.

Textbooks: Mark W.Janis, Richard S.Kay, and Anthony W.Bradley. Europen Human Rights Law. Oxfrod University Press, 1995 (Russian edition: Марк Дженис, Ричард Кэй, Энтони Брэдли. Европейское право в области прав человека: практика и комментарии. Москва – Будапешт, 1997)

Additional readings: Michele de Salvia. Precedents of the European Court of Human Rights: leading proncip[les of Judicial Practice Relevant to the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Juficial Practice from 1960 to 2002. (Russian edition: Микеле де Сальвиа. Прецеденты Европейского Суда по правам человека. Руководящие принципы судебной практики, относящейся к Европейской Конвенции о защите прав человека и основных свобод. Судебная практика с 1960 по 2002 г. Научное редактирование Ю.Ю.Берестнева. – Сс. 619-688).

10. Constitutional standards, legal and political context for freedom of expression in Russia Constitution of the RF, art. 29 and art. 23. The right of thought and speech. Prohibition of incitement to hatred and propaganda of social, racial, national, religious or language superiority. The right to information. The freedom of mass media. Prohibition of censorship. The right to privacy and protection of dignity and honor. Protection of the honor, dignity and business reputation by civil law. Civil Code, art. 152. Criminal Code of the RF: prohibition of libel, insult and incitement to hatred. Russian legislation and conventional standards under art. 10 of the ECHR. Cases against Russia on freedom of expression in the European Court of Human Rights: inadmissible and admissible complaints. Analysis of the Russian law on defamation in the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights.

Cases for analysis in class: Andrei Kozyrev v. Zhirinovskii. Inadmissibility decision of the Russian Constitutional Court of 27 September 1995. Chemodurov v. Russia. ECHR, Judgment of 31 July 2007. Romanenko v. Russia. ECHR, Judgment of 8 October, 2009. Duyldin and Kislov v. Russi, ECHR, Dyundin v. Russia, ECHR, Karman v. Russia. Judgment of 14 March 2007. Grinberg v. Russia. Judment of 21 July 2005. Krasulya v. Russia, Judgment of 22 February 2007. Shabanov and Tren v. Russia

Textbooks: Andras Sajo. Freedom of expression. Warsaw, 2004.

Additional Readings: Peter Krug. Civil Defamation Law and the Press in Russia: Private and Public Interests. The 1995 Civil Code, and the Constitution. Part One // Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal, 1995, vol. 13, pp. 847-871.

11. Hate Speech in Russian Context Hatred for some group as the only goal of hate speech. Racist propaganda, display of swastika and other Nazi symbols, calls for violence, and other forms of hate speech. Stanislav Dmitrievskiy’s Case (Russia). Incitement to violence and admissible criticism: standards and tests to draw a line. Practice of the European Court of Human Rights. Russian Extremism Law and Free Expression.

Proposed topics for Master’s Degree Dissertations: 1. Political and philosophical foundations of freedom of speech in Anglo-American and Russian political theories 2. Political, social and legal justifications for better protection of political speech 3. Limits of political speech as compared to other classes of speech and expression 4. Political and non-political speech: problems in definition and legal regulation 5. Free speech and democratic theory: the concepts of ‘public’, ‘public concern’ and ‘public discourse’ in court decisions on freedom of expression cases 6. Application of the “First Amendment” rules to different government actors in the American legal system 7. Classification of the government’s actions for purposes of the free speech clause: the distinction between acts that regulate the content of speech and acts that don’t in the American legal and political doctrine 8. Political considerations in court decision on free speech in the US: court analysis of revolutionary politics of anarchists and communists in 1925-1951 9. The concept of the ‘public forum’ in American free speech jurisprudence 10. Political and legal considerations in freedom of speech cases in Russian courts in 1905- 1917 11. Philosophy of free speech in Russian political and legal thought in early 1900-s