Article In: Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict: Online-First Articles
The role of linguistic criteria in hate speech identification
Examining evidence from ECtHR case-law
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
Abstract
This study explores the role of linguistic criteria in the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) reasoning in hate speech cases, alongside broader social, ideological, and contextual factors. It is based on a quantitative and qualitative corpus-assisted examination of 41 judgements, which are systematically assessed against analytical categories derived from Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) and the United Nations Rabat Plan of Action. The findings indicate that the Court’s reasoning follows a consistent quasi-linguistic structure, whereby descriptive legal terminology functionally corresponds to discursive strategies identified in CDA research. The Court’s assessment operates across interrelated analytical levels, encompassing micro-level discursive practices, meso-level social practices, and macro-level ideological frameworks. Linguistic characteristics of the impugned expressions are systematically examined in relation to contextual variables, including socio-political context, speaker intent and status, extent of dissemination, and likelihood of harm. Overall, the findings demonstrate an integrated evaluative model, suggesting that forensic linguistics may provide a methodologically robust basis for enhancing the consistency and transparency of judicial hate speech assessment.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Prior research on ECtHR reasoning in cases related to hate speech
- 3.Data and methods
- 3.1Data
- 3.2Analytical principles
- 4.Results
- 4.1Linguistic terminology and levels of analysis
- 4.2Terms related to micro-level analysis
- 4.3How do linguistic and contextual factors interact?
- 5.Conclusion
- Acknowledgments
- Notes
References
References (23)
Alkiviadou, Natalie. 2022. “Ain’t That Funny? A Jurisprudential Analysis of Humour in Europe and the U.S.” The European Journal of Humour Research 10(1):50–61.
. 2024. “Speech That Isn’t Mine: Obligations Under the European Court of Human Rights.” International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 37(1):77–90.
Anthony, Lawrence. 2024. AntConc (Version 4.3.1). Computer software. Tokyo: Waseda University. [URL]
Baider, Fabienne. 2022. “Covert Hate Speech, Conspiracy Theory and Anti-Semitism: Linguistic Analysis versus Legal Judgement.” International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 35(5):2347–2371.
Breemen, Kelly, and Vicky Breemen. 2022. “Imagining Interdisciplinary Dialogue in the European Court of Justice’s Deckmyn Decision: Conceptual Challenges When Law and Technology Regulate Parody.” HUMOR 35(3):447–482.
Buyse, Antoine. 2014. “Dangerous Expressions: The ECHR, Violence and Free Speech.” The International and Comparative Law Quarterly 63(2):491–503.
Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. 1997. Recommendation No. R (97) 20 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on “Hate Speech.” Adopted 30 October 1997. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. [URL]
European Commission against Racism and Intolerance. 2016. ECRI General Policy Recommendation No. 15 on combating hate speech. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. [URL]
European Court of Human Rights (ECHR-KS). 2025. “Key Theme — Article 10: Hate Speech.” ECHR-KS (Knowledge Sharing) Platform. [URL]
Foster, Steve. 2023. “Free Speech, Equality and Diversity: The Legitimacy of Controlling Content-Based Expression under the ECHR and in Domestic Law.” Tolley’s Communications Law 28(3):102–118. [URL]
Godioli, Alberto. 2020. “Cartoon Controversies at the European Court of Human Rights: Towards Forensic Humor Studies.” Open Library of Humanities 6(1):22.
Godioli, Alberto, Jennifer Young, and Brando M. Fiori. 2022. “Laughing Matters: Humor, Free Speech and Hate Speech at the European Court of Human Rights.” International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 35(5):2241–2265.
Guillén-Nieto, Victoria. 2023. Hate Speech: Linguistic Perspectives. Foundations in Language and Law 2. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
HUDOC. n.d. Case-Law of the European Court of Human Rights. [URL]
Kiska, Roger. 2012. “Hate Speech: Comparison between the European Court of Human Rights and the United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence.” Regent University Law Review 25(1):107–152.
Little, Laura E. 2011. “Just a Joke: Defamatory Humor and Incongruity’s Promise.” Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal 21:93–164.
Mchangama, Jacob, and Natalie Alkiviadou. 2021. “Hate Speech and the European Court of Human Rights: Whatever Happened to the Right to Offend, Shock or Disturb?” Human Rights Law Review 21(4):1008–1042.
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. 2012. Rabat Plan of Action on the Prohibition of Advocacy of National, Racial or Religious Hatred That Constitutes Incitement to Discrimination, Hostility or Violence. Geneva: United Nations. [URL]
Reisigl, Martin, and Ruth Wodak. 2001. Discourse and Discrimination: Rhetorics of Racism and Antisemitism. London: Routledge.
Sardo, Alessio. 2022. “Hate Speech: A Pragmatic Assessment of the European Court of Human Rights’ Jurisprudence.” European Convention on Human Rights Law Review 3(2):1–43.
Sottiaux, Stefan. 2022. “Conflicting Conceptions of Hate Speech in the ECtHR’s Case Law.” German Law Journal 23(9):1193–1211.
The Future of Free Speech. n.d. [URL]. Accessed February 20, 2026.
United Nations. 2020. United Nations Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech: Detailed Guidance on Implementation for United Nations Field Presences. New York: United Nations. [URL]