hate speech
TRANSCRIPT
Hate speech
Avv. Nicola Canestrini Ciclo di Seminari Living Integration laws
13 mggio 2016, UNITN
art. 21 Costituzione
«pietra angolare del sistema democratico»
(Corte Costituzionale 19.02.1965, n.9; 17.4.1969, n.84)
«fondamento della democrazia»
(Corte cost. n. 172 del 1972)
«il più alto, forse dei diritti fondamentali» (Corte cost. n. 138 del 1985)
libera manifestazione del pensiero
convenzioni internazionali
art. 19 Dichiarazione universale dei diritti
dell’uomo 1948
art. 10 CEDU
art. 19 Patto internazionale sui diritti
civili e politici 1966
art. 11 Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell’U.E.
libertà di manifestazione del
pensiero
diritto fondamentale del singolo
diritto sociale per “l’effettiva partecipazione di tutti i lavoratori
all’organizzazione politica, economica e sociale del Paese” (art.
3/2, Cost.).
(Corte cost. n. 138 del 1985)
dimensione individuale e sociale
indice fondamentale per misurare il grado di democraticità di un
sistema politico
“fondamento della società democratica”
(cfr. Corte EDU Kokkinakis v. Greece of 25 May 1993, Series A no. 260-A,
p. 17, para. 31).
fino a quando si adegua a determinate convenzioni.
Joseph Goebbels, Ministro della Propaganda del III Reich, 1937
L’arte è libera e deve mantenersi libera
anche se non si adegua a
determinate convenzioni.
Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 1976 Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria 1994 Jersild c. Danimarca 1994 (..)
L’espressione del pensiero è libera e deve
mantenersi libera freedom of expression (..) s
applicable not only to "information" or "ideas" that are favourably received or
regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that shock, offend or disturb the State or any sector of the population. Such are the
demands of that pluralism, tolerance and
broadmindedness without which there is no "democratic
society"
“... [T]olerance and respect for the equal dignity of all human beings constitute the foundations of a
democratic, pluralistic society. That being so, as a matter of principle it may be considered necessary in certain democratic societies to sanction or even
prevent all forms of expression which spread, incite, promote or justify hatred based on
intolerance ..., provided that any ‘formalities’, ‘conditions’, ‘restrictions’ or ‘penalties’ imposed are
proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.” (Erbakan v. Turkey ECHR judgment of 6 July
2006, § 56)
“Feindstrafrecht”
libertà di espressione art. 10 ECHR
tolleranza / rispetto
artt. 10/2, 17 ECHR
“[T]here is no doubt that any remark directed against the Convention’s underlying values would be removed from the protection of Article 10 [freedom of expression] by Article 17 [prohibition of abuse of rights] (...)”
Seurot v. France, ECHR decision on the admissibility of 18 May 2004)
“Feindstrafrecht”
confermata in appello ottobre 2015, pende Cassazione
It is true we no longer put heretics to death; and the amount of penal infliction which modern feeling would probably tolerate, even against the most obnoxious opinions, is not
sufficient to extirpate them. But let us not flatter ourselves that we are yet free from the stain even of legal persecution.
Penalties for opinion, or at least for its expression, still exist by law; and their enforcement is not, even in these times, so
unexampled as to make it at all incredible that they may some day be revived in full force.
John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1869
libertà di espressione vs. tolleranza
la cattive idee si sconfiggono con la repressione?
la cattive idee si sconfiggono con la
buone idee
.. e il silenzio è complice
Our decision is a reaffirmation of the principles of freedom and inclusiveness that the flag best
reflects, and of the conviction that our toleration of criticism [..] is a sign and source of our strength.
US Supreme Court, Texas v. Johnson, 1989
www.canestriniLex.comt @canestrinilex g+ +canestrinilex f canestrinilex