C M C M Y K Y K MEDIA REGULATORY AUTHORITIES AND HATE SPEECH The aim of this publication is to contribute to a wider understanding of the concept of hate speech, to offer a starting point in terms of providing recommendations and mechanisms for ghting against and preventing it, and to facilitate further efforts and initiatives. It should represent a useful and important tool in further activities of not only media regulatory bodies, but within the discourse of wider societal stakeholders. The Council of Europe wishes to extend its gratitude to national regulatory authorities in the eld of electronic media from South-East Europe for their involvement in producing this TE SPEECH publication, dedicated work, initiative, responsiveness and team-spirit that resulted in the creation of this very valuable publication. UTHORITIES AND HA Y A OR T A ENG MEDIA REGUL The Council of Europe is the continent’s leading The European Union is a unique economic and political human rights organisation. It comprises 47 member partnership between 28 democratic European countries. Its www.coe.int/en/web/freedom-expression states, 28 of which are members of the European aims are peace, prosperity and freedom for its 500 million Union. All Council of Europe member states have citizens – in a fairer, safer world. To make things happen, EU signed up to the European Convention on Human countries set up bodies to run the EU and adopt its legislation. Rights, a treaty designed to protect human rights, The main ones are the European Parliament (representing the democracy and the rule of law. The European Court people of Europe), the Council of the European Union of Human Rights oversees the implementation of (representing national governments) and the European the Convention in the member states. Commission (representing the common EU interest). www.coe.int http://europa.eu REGIONAL PUBLICATION MEDIA REGULATORY AUTHORITIES AND HATE SPEECH AUTHORS / EDITORS Asja Rokša Zubčevič Stanislav Bender Jadranka Vojvodić CONTRIBUTORS Emilija Petreska – Kamenjarova Milan Todorović Mirand Tafarshiku Monika Stafa June 2017 Council of Europe English edition All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated, reproduced or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic (CD-Rom, Internet, etc.) or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or any information storage or retrieval system, without the prior permission in writing from the Directorate of Communications (F-67075 Strasbourg Cedex or [email protected]). The opinions expressed in this work are the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy of the Council of Europe. Prepared and published within the scope of the Joint EU/CoE Programme “Reinforcing Judicial Expertise on Freedom of Expression and the Media in South-East Europe (JUFREX)” Print, layout and cover design Dosije studio, Belgrade Copyright©2017 Council of Europe Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION 7 2. HATE SPEECH DISCOURSE 9 3. CASES OF HATE SPEECH IN THE REGION 21 Albania 21 Bosnia and Herzegovina 22 Croatia 39 Macedonian regulatory authority 45 Montenegro 60 Kosovo* 76 Serbia 77 4. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 84 ANNEX: Annex 1: Legal framework overviews of participating countries 95 Annex 2: Relevant case-law of the European Court of Human Rights 119 Audiovisual media and radio are powerful mediums. It is important that its power is exercised responsibly and a balance is struck between freedom of expression and fair and responsible journalism. Table of Contents Page 3 Acknowledgments: The Council of Europe wishes to extend its gratitude to Albanian, Bosnian and Herzegovinian, Croatian, Kosovar1 Montenegrin, Macedonian, and Serbian national regulatory authorities in the field of electronic media for their involvement in producing this publication. Special recognition and gratitude goes to Asja Rokša – Zubčević, Stanislav Bender and Jadranka Vojvodić for their personal engagement in authoring large parts of this publication, and coordinating the entire process of production of this publication. Also, gratitude for their involvement is extended to other participants of national regulatory authorities: Emilija Petreska – Kamenjarova, Milan Todorović, Monika Stafa and Mirand Tafarshiku. Dedicated work, initiative, responsiveness and team-work are the characteristics of the crew working on this task which has, yet again, showed close and friendly relations among colleagues, and resulted in the creation of this very valuable publication. 1 Kosovo* – This designation is without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with UNSCR 1244 and the ICJ Opinion on the Kosovo Declaration of Independence. Acknowledgments Page 5 1. Introduction ithin the Council of Europe and the European Union project “Reinforcing Judicial Expertise on Freedom of Expression and W the Media in South-East Europe (JUFREX)”, the Regional conference “European standards and best practices in relation to hate speech and the protection of minors” was held on 7–8 July 2016, in Montenegro. With the aim of talking about important topics for all regulatory bodies, the conference promoted the regional cooperation in the fight against hate speech and the protection of minors from potentially inappropriate and harmful media content. Since the conference was the first gathering organised in the framework of the JUFREX project – it enabled the discussion about future cooperation and other activities related to the field of media regulation. The conference was attended by the representatives of Albanian, Bosnian and Herzegovinian, Croatian, Kosovar, Montenegrin, Macedonian, and Serbian regulatory bodies with guests from Croatia and Slovenia. The participants exchanged experiences related to regulation in this area and proposed to prepare a publication on hate speech that would contain information about significant cases that were dealt with by the regulators in the region. Also, it was agreed that one part of the publication should be devoted to the role of national regulatory authorities in this respect, including their legal and regulatory mandates. As suggested, these examples could serve as guidelines and recommendations for further action in similar cases. As this proposal was accepted by the JUFREX team, the meeting took place in early February of 2017 in Belgrade, where the representatives of national regulatory authorities discussed further steps, format, methodology and structure of the publication as well as overall coordination, division of tasks and contributions to be made by each regulatory authority. Accordingly, this publication has been prepared as a joint effort and endeavour of representatives of aforementioned national regulatory authorities, including those of Croatia, which is not a direct participant of this project, but its contributions are also very much valuable from the perspective of proximities of the region, and understandability of languages. National regulatory authorities facilitated meaningful and thoughtful interaction through examination of an issue that requires collaborative action and exchanges of good practice. This publication is available in both electronic and print format, as well as in languages of all JUFREX countries. Within the framework of the JUFREX project, it will be shared with the representatives of national judicial branches. Furthermore, Introduction Page 7 it will be widely disseminated to various stakeholders including parliaments, academic institutions, self-regulatory bodies, journalists, etc. The aim of this publication is, among other things, to contribute to a wider understanding of the concept of hate speech, what it does and does not constitute, to offer a starting point in terms of providing recommendations and mechanisms for fighting against and preventing it, and to facilitate further efforts and initiatives. It should represent a useful and important tool in further activities of not only media regulatory bodies, but within the discourse of wider societal stakeholders. Page 8 Media regulatory authorities and hate speech 2. Hate speech discourse he right to freedom of expression is one of the most valuable human rights, guaranteed by various international conventions of human rights T and national constitutions. Such a right encompasses not only the right of everyone to disseminate different information and ideas (factual statements and value judgements), but also everyone’s right to receive information which others want to communicate to them (the so-called “right of the public to know”). The right of expression of thought is today an unavoidable political principle which is not theoretically questionable any more. It is one of the fundamental freedoms of man and citizen whose protection is ensured by international conventions and national legislations. Being an inherent and inalienable human right, it is a direct expression of human personality in a society and therefore it does not depend on the approval of state. At the same time, it is one of the fundamental rights of citizens, as there is no democracy without it. By ensuring the confrontation of opinions and presentation of different argumentation, it paves the way to fruitful syntheses which is a step forward on the way to social progress. Freedom of expression constitutes democracy, and where it stops, democracy does as well. Therefore, it is the basis of survival of each democratic society. In certain situations, the freedom of expression of thought may question another fundamental human right of