The connection between hate speech and international atrocity crimes is never far from the headlines and the public debate. Discussions such as those around hate speech allegations in different conflicts including in social media fuelling ethnic violence have frequently raised questions of when such speech can and should be criminalised.
This discussion is not new and finds its legal origins in the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, where Nazi propagandists Julius Streicher and Hans Fritzsche were charged with crimes against humanity on the basis of their hate speech. The mixed result of this case highlights how complex hate speech-based trials can be as Streicher was convicted and sentenced to death and Fritzsche was fully acquitted. Attempts at similar trials at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and in domestic tribunals have shown similar complexities and difficulties in building cases based on speech acts. These prosecutions have sparked debate on the proper balance between the right to free speech and the need to prevent the commission of atrocities and protect the rights of minorities.
This project will therefore first undertake an empirical study of what forms of hate speech have been criminalised and prosecuted at both international and domestic levels with a focus on the German domestic situation. It will then provide a theoretical analysis of the pros and cons of these approaches with a view to balancing free speech with other concerns.