It is not like the gestapo took him out from his house to some re-education camp, there is usually an overreaction from American readers when they respond to such stories.
There are historical and cultural differences. We have these laws in place in order to safeguard our society. It is sort of a natural reaction in a continent that was ravaged by several wars, conflicts that were a direct result of fascism, racism and other nonsense.
People who incite violence or break these "hate speech" laws in Europe usually have to pay day-fines or some such, they are not going to prison unless it is a very serious offense. Actually in my opinion we are too lenient and have allowed certain groups to operate too freely in the recent past, be it fascists or radical islamists who have tried to recruit people into ISIS etc.
You can make the argument that authorities overreacted in this case but most likely this person only stands to benefit financially from this.
ps. European Court of HR regarding freedom of expression :
Müslüm Gündüz v. Turkey, 4.12.2003, para 40 and 41
Furthermore, as the Court noted in Jersild v. Denmark (judgment of 23 September 1994, Series A no. 298, p. 25, § 35), there can be no doubt that concrete expressions constituting hate speech, which may be insulting to particular individuals or groups, are not protected by Article 10 of the Convention.
See also.
Erbakan v. Turkey 6.7.2006 para 55.iv and 56
Karatepe v. Turkey 31.7.2007 para 25
Féret v. Belgium 16.7.2009 para 63 and 6
These are not unrestricted rights, we do not live in a black and white world.
There are historical and cultural differences. We have these laws in place in order to safeguard our society. It is sort of a natural reaction in a continent that was ravaged by several wars, conflicts that were a direct result of fascism, racism and other nonsense.
People who incite violence or break these "hate speech" laws in Europe usually have to pay day-fines or some such, they are not going to prison unless it is a very serious offense. Actually in my opinion we are too lenient and have allowed certain groups to operate too freely in the recent past, be it fascists or radical islamists who have tried to recruit people into ISIS etc.
You can make the argument that authorities overreacted in this case but most likely this person only stands to benefit financially from this.
ps. European Court of HR regarding freedom of expression :
Müslüm Gündüz v. Turkey, 4.12.2003, para 40 and 41
Furthermore, as the Court noted in Jersild v. Denmark (judgment of 23 September 1994, Series A no. 298, p. 25, § 35), there can be no doubt that concrete expressions constituting hate speech, which may be insulting to particular individuals or groups, are not protected by Article 10 of the Convention.
See also.
Erbakan v. Turkey 6.7.2006 para 55.iv and 56
Karatepe v. Turkey 31.7.2007 para 25
Féret v. Belgium 16.7.2009 para 63 and 6
These are not unrestricted rights, we do not live in a black and white world.