In 2004, the German physical education instructor Stefan Herre founded the Islamophobic and extreme right website "Politically Incorrect". What started as a small blog of an individual is today the largest German-speaking website for the extreme right and Islam enemies (Spiegel Online 2011). It is ranked among the thousand biggest German websites in terms of traffic and more than 60,000 people visit daily "Politically Incorrect". A large part of them come from Austria and Switzerland (Frankfurter Rundschau 2011).
Unfortunately, this example shows that even today, more than 60 years after fascism, Muslims often face hostility in both Germany and Austria. The so called “Hate Speech”, and the institutionalization of “Hate Speech” by websites like "Politically Incorrect", account for a large part of this hostility. Therefore, the state, which has the responsibility of protecting its citizens, has also the duty to develop effective ways of responding to “Hate Speech”. This term paper deals with the question whether Germany or Austria have these effective policies for responding to “Hate Speech”. And if yes, which one of these two countries has better legal or extralegal ways for a response.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Legal responses to “Hate Speech”
3. Country comparison between Germany and Austria
3.1. Germany
3.2. Austria
4. Summary of the Real Life Response to „Hate Speech“
5. Policy Recommendations
Objectives and Topics
This paper examines the efficacy of legal and extralegal policies for responding to "Hate Speech" by comparing the approaches of Germany and Austria. It addresses the fundamental tension between protecting human dignity and upholding freedom of expression, while investigating whether state authorities in both countries effectively combat extremist online platforms.
- Legal frameworks and international agreements concerning hate speech.
- Comparative analysis of German and Austrian legislative responses.
- Evaluation of state authority reactions to reported extremist content.
- Identification of gaps between written law and practical implementation.
- Policy recommendations for improving institutional responses to hate speech.
Excerpt from the Book
2. Legal responses to “Hate Speech”
Before joining the debate whether banning the so called “Hate Speech” is a necessity for a democratic society or a slippery slope into censorship, a proper definition of “Hate Speech” is crucial. A very brief and proper definition of “Hate Speech” is: “Hate Speech is speech disparaging a racial, sexual, or ethnic group or a member of such a group.” (Dictionary.com 2013). Here, the medium of such a “Hate Speech” doesn’t matter. It may be a public speech of an individual, an entire book or just a single symbol as a swastika. The head and front of “Hate Speech” is that it offends the dignity of particular group of people (usually a minority).
In a free society, like Germany and Austria, all men are equal and one of the highest goals of the state is to enforce this equality through laws and actions. The problem here is that in this way other inalienable human rights such as freedom of expression can be restricted. Stephen Holmes sums it up quite well with the following sentences: “The different values in play could be formulated, at the individual level, as individual freedom of expression versus personal dignity. Protecting the one or the other has social consequences; emphasizing the first enhances the legitimacy of the political system; emphasizing the second enhances the harmony of the society.”
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Outlines the rise of the extreme-right website "Politically Incorrect" and introduces the comparative study between Germany and Austria regarding policies against hate speech.
2. Legal responses to “Hate Speech”: Discusses the theoretical debate regarding the restriction of free speech versus the protection of human dignity, referencing various legal scholars.
3. Country comparison between Germany and Austria: Analyzes the international and domestic legal frameworks governing hate speech in both nations, including specific constitutional and criminal code provisions.
4. Summary of the Real Life Response to „Hate Speech“: Presents the findings of an empirical test where state authorities were contacted regarding extremist content, revealing a lack of effective institutional response.
5. Policy Recommendations: Proposes actionable improvements, such as the establishment of specialized hotlines and better support for citizens reporting hate speech.
Keywords
Hate Speech, Germany, Austria, Freedom of Expression, Human Dignity, Extremism, Legislation, Politically Incorrect, Digital Rights, Legal Comparison, Policy, Criminal Code, State Responsibility, Human Rights, Online Content
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this research?
The paper investigates whether Germany and Austria possess effective policies to address "Hate Speech" and evaluates their legal and extralegal responses through a comparative lens.
What are the central themes discussed in this work?
The key themes include the tension between freedom of expression and the protection of dignity, the role of international agreements, and the practical implementation of hate speech laws.
What is the primary goal of the study?
The goal is to determine which of the two countries has more effective mechanisms for responding to hate speech and to identify gaps between legislation and real-life enforcement.
Which scientific methods are employed?
The author uses a comparative legal analysis combined with an empirical "real-life test" involving communication with government ministries in both countries.
What topics are covered in the main body?
The body covers theoretical perspectives on censorship, detailed breakdowns of criminal laws in Germany and Austria, and an evaluation of the responsiveness of state authorities.
Which keywords define the paper's scope?
Essential keywords include Hate Speech, Germany, Austria, Freedom of Expression, Legal Comparison, and Policy Recommendations.
How did the author test the responsiveness of the German and Austrian authorities?
The author sent direct inquiries to the Ministries of the Interior in both countries regarding the extremist website "Politically Incorrect" to see if authorities would act upon the information.
What did the author conclude regarding the "real-life test"?
The author concluded that both countries failed to provide an effective extralegal response, though Austria at least maintained a dedicated hotline for reporting Nazi-related activities.
Why are Germany and Austria specifically chosen for this comparison?
They share a similar language, historical experience regarding National Socialism, and current challenges regarding immigration.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Adam Balogh (Autor:in), 2013, Enabling Policies for Responding to “Hate Speech” in Practice, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/209230
