When is it okay to place limits on free speech? That’s been debated for ages. In general, countries like the United States tend to place a very high bar on what would justify limiting free expression, while countries in Europe, particularly those most directly affected by the wars and extremism of the last century, have sought limits on certain kinds of speech or expression, reasoning that some values – like sensitivity toward victims – outweigh the important right of free speech. In Hungary, we’ve just come up with a new proposal for a solution, based on the German approach, that would balance these two points.

As Europe slogs on through economic crisis, extremist ideas are on the rise across the continent, and we have plenty of examples right here at home. Addressing this issue, the Hungarian Parliament passed a series of laws with one goal: to counter hate directed at particular social groups, to reinforce that the majority protects the minority. We have banned marching groups. We have banned denial of crimes committed by authoritarian regimes of the 20th century. In line with these measures, the Parliament passed a law to ban the symbols of these regimes so that survivors of the Holocaust or Communist dictatorship would not be confronted by these symbols of terror. The Constitutional Court of Hungary found the law unconstitutional and struck it down, effective beginning April 30.

Prime Minister Orbán addressed the issue in a radio interview last Friday, emphasizing that a “European solution should be found” to solve this problem. It is a matter of humanity and sensitivity that in a country like Hungary such symbols are banned at least as long as victims are alive, the Prime Minister added, but the solution should not be a hasty one and it should not require an additional amendment to the Constitution. In other words: the dignity of survivors and memory of the victims is to be protected and should not be subject to offensive relativism or provocation.

Hungary does not stand alone with this problem. So, studying the German approach, we have come up with a solution. The law has not passed yet, but the proposal is to amend the Penal Code, so that hate symbols would be banned if displayed with the intent of disturbing public order or violating human dignity. Learning from the German controversy, instead of a blanket prohibition which is what the Constitutional Court struck down, the courts would decide whether a particular case is intended to disturb public order or violate human dignity.

Source: A Blog About Hungary by Ferenc Kumin