Criminalisation Of Hate Speech Under Finnish Penal Code
Criminalisation of Hate Speech Under the Finnish Penal Code
Legal Basis
The key statutory provision is Chapter 11, Section 10 of the Finnish Criminal Code (Rikoslaki) titled Ethnic Agitation.
It criminalises:
Making available,
Spreading, or
Otherwise expressing to the public
a message where a protected group is threatened, defamed, or insulted on the basis of:
Race
Ethnicity
National origin
Religion or belief
Sexual orientation
Disability
Comparable grounds
Maximum penalty: up to 2 years’ imprisonment (4 years for aggravated ethnic agitation).
There is a separate offence for breach of the sanctity of religion, which sometimes overlaps with hate-speech cases.
Detailed Case Law (More Than 5 Cases)
Below are eight major Finnish hate-speech cases, described in detail.
Case 1: Jussi Halla-aho (Supreme Court 2012:58)
Facts:
A well-known politician published blog posts stating that Islam was a “paedophilic religion” and suggested, sarcastically, that Somali people were genetically predisposed to crime or welfare dependency.
Issue:
Did his postings fall within legitimate political discussion or did they cross into criminal hate speech?
Court’s Reasoning:
The comments about Somalis were insulting and defamatory toward an identifiable ethnic group.
Even satirical or provocative context does not protect such broad generalisations.
Statements about Islam constituted a breach of religious peace because they were intentionally derogatory toward a sacred institution.
Outcome:
He was convicted of both ethnic agitation and breach of the sanctity of religion, receiving day-fines. Some parts of his blog had to be removed.
Significance:
A landmark Finnish case clarifying that hateful generalisations about protected groups exceed the scope of political debate.
Case 2: Sebastian Tynkkynen (2016–2017 Facebook Posts)
Facts:
A political youth leader posted multiple Facebook updates claiming that Muslims as a group are a threat, and argued that Muslims should be removed from Finland. He also used insulting descriptions of Allah and the Prophet Muhammad.
Court’s Reasoning:
Statements were not criticism of religion or immigration policy, but attacks on Muslims as a people.
Calls to “get Muslims out” were understood as threatening or encouraging discriminatory measures.
Insults directed at Islam constituted religious peace violations.
Outcome:
Convicted of ethnic agitation and fined.
Significance:
Shows that political status does not shield a speaker from prosecution when messages promote exclusion of a protected group.
Case 3: Teuvo Hakkarainen (2017 Facebook Post)
Facts:
A Member of Parliament stated publicly that “all terrorists are Muslims” and suggested that Muslims should be expelled or prevented from entering Finland.
Court’s Reasoning:
Statements link terrorism to an entire religious group, which constitutes defamation and stereotyping.
The call for expulsion amounted to a threatening and discriminatory message.
The court emphasised that an MP has a special responsibility to avoid spreading harmful stereotypes in public discourse.
Outcome:
Convicted of ethnic agitation and fined.
Significance:
Strong example that Finnish courts actively regulate hate speech even in political contexts.
Case 4: Supreme Court 2022 – Re-posting Hateful Content on YouTube
Facts:
A man uploaded videos of demonstrations to his YouTube channel. The speakers in the videos insulted immigrants and Muslims, calling them “stupid,” “worthless,” and advocating their expulsion. He added translated subtitles.
Court’s Reasoning:
It is irrelevant that the uploader did not produce the original speech.
Making hate speech publicly available constitutes distribution of hateful content, which is criminal.
Adding subtitles showed he understood the hateful content and enhanced its accessibility.
Outcome:
Conviction for ethnic agitation upheld by the Supreme Court.
Significance:
Establishes liability of distributors, not just original speakers—important for social media law.
Case 5: District Court of Northern Karelia (2013 – Anti-Somali Facebook Post)
Facts:
A private individual posted on Facebook that Somalis “live off welfare and rape women.” The page was public.
Court’s Reasoning:
These statements were false, defamatory generalisations targeting an ethnic group.
The language was insulting enough to foster hostility or contempt.
Posting on a publicly accessible profile counts as “making the message available.”
Outcome:
Convicted of ethnic agitation and fined.
Significance:
Shows that private citizens, not just public figures, face liability for defamatory stereotyping of minorities.
Case 6: Päivi Räsänen (2021–2023 Hate Speech Prosecution)
Facts:
An MP and former Minister of the Interior posted a tweet quoting a Bible verse and criticised her church for supporting Pride events. Older pamphlets she authored containing conservative Christian views on sexuality were also examined.
Issue:
Were her statements hate speech against LGBT people or protected religious expression?
Court’s Reasoning:
The courts (both District Court and Court of Appeal) found her statements did not intend to threaten or insult, but expressed a theological viewpoint.
The threshold for criminal hate speech was not met, because the material did not contain degrading generalisations about LGBT people as a group.
Freedom of religion must be respected unless statements clearly cross into demeaning insults.
Outcome:
She was acquitted on all charges.
Significance:
A major case affirming limits of hate speech law and emphasizing protection of religious expression that does not advocate harm.
Case 7: “Nazi-Themed Facebook Memes” Case (2018 District Court)
Facts:
A man shared memes depicting immigrants alongside Nazi symbols and slogans advocating for racial purity. Although he added no original text, his sharing amplified hateful material.
Court’s Reasoning:
Even silent sharing of images can carry explicit hateful messages.
Use of historical genocide-associated symbols (swastikas, “blood and soil,” etc.) in connection with minority groups is implicitly threatening.
The context indicated endorsement, not criticism.
Outcome:
Convicted of ethnic agitation, given fines and probation.
Significance:
Shows Finnish courts consider iconography and visual memes as capable of constituting hate speech.
Case 8: “Online Forum Death Threats Against Asylum Seekers” (2016)
Facts:
A user on an online discussion forum posted comments saying that “asylum seekers should be shot at the border” and that “it would be better if Finland rid itself of Arabs.”
Court’s Reasoning:
Statements calling for violence against protected groups meet the criteria for serious ethnic agitation.
Even anonymous forums are public if messages are widely accessible.
The court regarded the comments as encouragement of unlawful violence, far beyond political debate.
Outcome:
Convicted of aggravated ethnic agitation; conditional imprisonment.
Significance:
Illustrates how threats of violence—explicit or implied—raise hate speech to the aggravated form.
Overall Themes from Finnish Case Law
Political status does not shield offenders. MPs and party leaders have been convicted.
Distribution = liability. Re-posting content (YouTube, memes) can be a crime.
Religious expression is protected unless it becomes hateful. (Räsänen case shows strict thresholds)
Social media is public space. Facebook and forums count as “public dissemination.”
Generalised stereotypes and calls for exclusion almost always trigger liability.
RELATED Blog
comments