From a rejected initiative in Tirana to a New European Standard

2025-07-22 18:27:00, Opinione Majlinda Bregu

A few days ago, the Council of Europe clearly established that hate speech does not constitute a protected form of freedom of expression, under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This is a weighty decision: because it restores the balance between two principles often clashing in public and digital spaces, freedom of expression and the dignity of everyone.

Article 10 of the Convention is fundamental to the protection of free speech. But it is not absolute. This article clearly provides that freedom of expression may be restricted if such expression:
– harms the reputation or rights of others,
– constitutes hate speech or incitement to violence,
– or threatens public order in a democratic society.
In essence, European law protects speech, but not insult. It recognizes criticism, but not humiliation.
A little reminder: Albania, 2015.

At a time when no one wanted to touch the dangerous field of online comments, I proposed a simple but essential change to the Civil Code:
That portal administrators be legally liable if they allow hate speech comments that violate the dignity, personality and reputation of individuals, recognizing damage to reputation as a serious harm that requires legal intervention beyond words.
Holding online media accountable is today becoming a basic principle to balance Freedom and Responsibility.

The Council of Europe and the European Court of Human Rights have evolved towards expectations for "notice and take down" mechanisms for online hate speech.

-EU Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA and subsequent European Parliament resolutions (eg January 2024) strengthen criminal sanctions for incitement and hate crimes.
In 2015, I did not call for censorship. I called for accountability for the "deletion" of inappropriate comments.
- Today, the Council of Europe and the ECHR have incorporated this logic into new standards, and have even evolved towards expectations for "notice and take down" mechanisms for online hate speech.
I did not attack freedom. I called for the protection of human dignity in an increasingly hostile environment, especially for women, victims of violence, critical voices and public figures.
But... instead of reflection, the opening of this debate turned into a barrage of attacks.

Some accused me of bringing back the infamous Agitation-Propaganda article from the dictatorship.
Others, who had elevated freedom of speech to the level of dogma, attacked me as a threat to democracy.

While the most zealous, the paid swearers, employed by the political party cadres (including mine), went on the offensive to justify the daily norm of work-swearing.
The proposal was blocked in parliament.
And today...
Today, more than a decade later, European institutions, the Council of Europe, more precisely the European Court of Human Rights, are embracing the same principle that was then ridiculed as a "threat."

Yes, platforms need to be held accountable.
Yes, hate speech needs to be punished, not tolerated.
Yes, freedom of expression ends where verbal violence and humiliation begin.

These are no longer individual ideas. They are the new standards of European democracies.
Justice delays, but it does not forget!

I know what it means to stand up for a principle and be left alone.
I know what it's like to be convinced that you're defending something essential, while being "decorated" with insults and pointed fingers.

But I also know that when time speaks for you, you don't need to defend yourself anymore.
If I could go back?
I would propose again.

But today it is enough that the Courts have a decision in hand and a standard that they can easily apply.
Because freedom without responsibility is not democracy. It is chaos.
And dignity is not an option. It is an obligation of every society that calls itself civilized.//