Hate speech as a crime

Sovražni govor se je kot pojem najprej pojavil v anglosaškem svetu, danes pa je postal pereč problem sodobne družbe ne samo v ZDA, temveč tudi na evropskih tleh. Univerzalne definicije ni, se pa največkrat glede vprašanja, kaj je sovražni govor, uporablja tista, ki jo je podal Svet Evrope v dodatku k Priporočilu št. R (97) 20 iz leta 1997. Zakonodaja v Republiki Sloveniji tega pojma izrecno ne vsebuje, ga pa inkriminira na osnovi 297. člena KZ-1 kot javno spodbujanje sovraštva, nasilja ali nestrpnosti. Če je evropska zakonodaja zgled solidne ureditve prepovedi sovražnega govora, tega po kritični presoji veljavnega prava ne moremo trditi za zakonodajo v Republiki Sloveniji. Težava se pojavi že pri samem (ne)poimenovanju termina sovražni govor, kjer ni mogoče zaslediti njegove dosledne omembe ali opredelitve. Novela KZ-1B je prinesla pomembno spremembo, s katero je bila uvedena zahteva, da je dejanje storjeno na način, ki lahko ogrozi ali moti javni red in mir, ali z uporabo grožnje, zmerjanja ali žalitev, kar pomeni, da je prag politike pregona za to kaznivo dejanje postavljen visoko, tožilstvo in sodišča v Republiki Sloveniji pa ta domet še širijo z zahtevo po konkretni ogrozitvi ali z uporabo konkretne grožnje, zmerjanja ali žalitev, pri tem pa razlagajo drugi del ureditve kumulativno, namesto alternativno, kot je to storilo Evropsko sodišče za človekove pravice v svojih sodbah, po katerih bi se morala sodišča v Republiki Sloveniji zgledovati. Glede na sedanjo ureditev je praktično nemogoče doseči kazenski pregon kaznivega dejanja sovražnega govora ali njegovo obsodbo, zato bi se moral spremeniti bodisi 297. člen KZ-1 bodisi pravno stališče o pregonu kaznivega dejanja javnega spodbujanja sovraštva, nasilja ali nestrpnosti Vrhovnega državnega tožilstva RS po 297. členu KZ-1 bodisi razlaga sodišč, ki ne prepoznajo hibridne narave tega člena, morebiti pa vse od naštetega. Zadostovalo bi samo nekaj jasnih in dobro osnovanih sodnih primerov, ki bi opozorili javnost na meje zakonitega in sprejemljivega. Posledično bi se lažje določila tudi meja med sovražnim govorom in svobodo govora kot pravico, katero je pod določenimi pogoji dopustno omejiti, ter med sovražnim govorom kot prekrškom in kot kaznivim dejanjem.Hate speech, as a concept, first appeared in the Anglo-Saxon world, but has become a pressing problem of modern society not only in the United States, but also on European grounds. The universal definition does not exist regarding the issue of hate speech, but the most commonly used is the one by the Council of Europe in the Appendix to Recommendation No. R (97) 20 of 1997. The legislation of the Republic of Slovenia does not explicitly contain this term, but it is incriminated on the basis of Article 297 of the KZ-1 as a public incitement to hatred, violence or intolerance. If European legislation is an example of a sound regulation of the prohibition of hate speech, this can not be considered for the legislation in the Republic of Slovenia after a critical assessment of the applicable law. The problem arises as the (non) naming of the term of hate speech, where its consistent reference or definition can not be traced. The novel KZ-1B brought about a significant change where it was requested that the act must be committed in a way that could endanger or disrupt public order and peace, or by using threats, intentions or insults, which means that the policy threshold for this crime is set high. The prosecutor\u27s office and the courts in the Republic of Slovenia even extend this scope further with a request for concrete threats or using a concrete threat, gesture or insult, while interpreting the second part of the regulation cumulatively rather than alternatively as the European Court of Justice for human rights is doing in their judgments according to which the courts in the Republic of Slovenia should be inspired. According to the current legislation, it is practically impossible to achieve the criminal prosecution of a criminal act of a hate speech or its conviction, and therefore, either Article 297 of the KZ-1 or the legal position on the prosecution of the criminal act of public incitement to hatred, violence or intolerance by the Supreme State Prosecutor\u27s Office of the Republic of Slovenia about 297 Article KZ-1 or an interpretation of courts that do not recognize the hybrid nature of this article, should change or possibly all of the above. Only a few clear and well-founded court cases would suffice to alert the public to the legitimate and acceptable limits. Consequently, the border between hate speech and freedom of speech would be easier to determine as a right which is permissible to be limited under certain conditions, and between hostile speech as an offense and as a crime