Hate Speech And Incitement Offences Online

04 Nov 2025 --
0 Comments

Key Legal Framework in Finland

Under Finnish Criminal Code, “incitement against a national, ethnic, racial or religious group” (“kiihottaminen kansanryhmää vastaan”) is a criminal offense.

Courts weigh freedom of expression against the harm caused by hateful content; not all harsh or insulting speech is punished, but when speech is threatening, demeaning, or likely to incite hatred, the law may apply.

Online content (blogs, social media, YouTube) is treated seriously; making content publicly available “to a general audience” can make it punishable.

The Supreme Court (KKO) has clarified that even if someone is just sharing hateful content (and not the original speaker), they can be held responsible.

Important Cases

Here are five (or more) important Finnish cases involving hate speech or incitement, especially in an online or public context:

1. KKO:2012:58 – “Islam blog case”

Facts: A person (let’s call him “A”) published a blog post on the internet containing extremely derogatory remarks about Islam, calling Muhammad a pedophile, claiming Islam is a “pedophile religion,” etc. The post also made offensive generalizations about Somalis, suggesting welfare dependence might be national or “genetic.”

Lower Courts: The District Court initially convicted A for breach of religious peace (“uskonrauhan rikkominen”), but did not convict on incitement (“kiihottaminen kansanryhmää vastaan”) for some of the statements.

Supreme Court Reasoning:

A’s blog used a sarcastic style, but the Court found this did not excuse the content: even if irony or “testing boundaries” was intended, the statements were insulting and defamatory in substance.

The Court noted that “critique of religion” is not per se illegal — but A’s language crossed into “herjaava” (outright defamatory) expressions, especially about Islam and Somalis, which are likely to foster contempt, intolerance, and possibly hatred.

These kinds of expressions do not enjoy full protection under freedom of speech, because of their insulting and demeaning nature toward protected groups.

Outcome: A was convicted of incitement to hatred (“kiihottaminen kansanryhmää vastaan”) in addition to breach of religious peace. The Court imposed a fine.

Significance: This case is pivotal for online hate speech in Finland. It clarifies that publishing hateful content in a blog (internet) is not “just opinion” if it is demeaning and likely to stoke hatred.

2. KKO:2022:63 – YouTube videos case

Facts: A had a YouTube channel and posted (or re-posted) English-language speeches given in public demonstrations. These speeches insulted immigrants and Muslims — calling them “cruel, arrogant, stupid, worthless, sick” — and argued that such persons should be “kicked out” of the country. A added subtitles in Finnish and several other languages to these videos.

Lower Courts: The District Court convicted A for incitement; the Court of Appeal upheld this.

Supreme Court Reasoning:

The Court stressed that A was responsible for the content he made publicly available, even if he didn’t originate all of it. Because he uploaded it on his channel, added translations, and knowingly published it, he had sufficient control and understanding of the content.

The insulting, demeaning character of the speech was “slanderous and insulting” under Finnish law. These were not simply political statements or “robust debate” — they were the kind of expressions that can provoke contempt or hatred.

The fact that the speech originated from public demonstrations does not automatically protect it: making hateful statements in a demonstration doesn’t mean they can be uploaded and circulated without limit.

Freedom of expression has limits: “political speech” is given more leeway, but that does not mean you can incite hatred.

Outcome: The Supreme Court convicted A of two counts of incitement to hatred against a national/ethnic/religious group. The earlier fine was upheld.

Significance: This case is especially important because it shows that distributors of hateful content (not just the original speaker) can be criminally liable — especially on online platforms like YouTube. It also shows that adding subtitles (i.e., making content more accessible) can increase responsibility.

3. Helsinki Court of Appeal, Case R18/2249 (2019)

Facts: The defendant (“A”) posted multiple hateful comments in public Facebook groups (anti-immigrant), referring to refugees, migrants, Muslims. His messages accused migrants of mass rape / assault, used strong pejorative language, and were clearly threatening and insulting. A claimed he was “just contributing to public debate” about immigration.

Appeal Court Reasoning:

The Court applied Finnish Criminal Code provisions on incitement (“kiihottaminen kansanryhmää vastaan”), weighing them with freedom of expression considerations (Constitution + European human rights standards).

The Court stressed that harsh criticism of immigration policy or political actors is not necessarily criminal. But what A said was not a “constructive public debate”; it was threatening, insulting, and clearly demeaning — not a reasoned critique.

The Court rejected A’s defense that, because he was politically active, his statements should be more protected: his role as a “political actor” does not absolve him of criminal responsibility for hate speech.

The Court found that the language used could “arouse intolerance, contempt, or even hatred” toward the targeted groups.

Outcome: The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction for incitement / hatred.

Significance: This case is a strong example of social media (Facebook) hate speech leading to conviction. It also demonstrates that political speech is not a blanket shield when the expressions are threatening or demeaning to a protected group.

4. District Court of Keski-Suomi, Case R 16/2618 (2017)

Facts: A member of Parliament (Teuvo Hakkarainen) made Facebook postings stating that all terrorists are Muslims, demanding that all Muslims be removed from Finland or that their entry must be restricted.

Court’s Decision: The District Court convicted him for incitement to hatred.

Reasoning:

The court found that his public statements targeting Muslims as a group count as “incitement against a national / religious group.”

The statements were not just political opinion: they included threats or calls for exclusion (“remove all Muslims”), which can stoke hatred or fear in the public.

His status as a parliamentarian or public figure does not give him immunity: being politically active means more responsibility, not less, when addressing protected groups.

Outcome: Conviction for “kiihottaminen kansanryhmää vastaan.”

Significance: This case is significant because it shows that hate speech by public officials is prosecutable; being an MP does not exempt someone from criminal liability when making inflammatory statements online.

5. KKO:2020:68 – Disbandment of a Racist Association

Facts: An unregistered association was active in Finland, with an ideological basis of national socialism, anti-immigrant and anti‑Semitic views, Holocaust denial, and praise for violence (in some contexts). While not all their activity was violent, they spread racist texts and propaganda.

Supreme Court Reasoning:

The Court found that some of the association’s texts were “criminalized as ethnic agitation” (“kiihottaminen kansanryhmää vastaan”) under the Criminal Code. The hateful content was not protected speech; it went beyond political argument to “panettelu” and spreading prejudiced messages.

The Court noted that these texts reinforced negative stereotypes, demeaning features of protected groups, and could incite intolerance or hatred.

Because of this, the Court held that disbandment of the association was justified: its very purpose and public activity were contrary to fundamental rights (human dignity, equality) and rule of law.

Also, even though the association did not explicitly organize violence in its formal goals, there had been violent acts by its members, showing a real risk, not just abstract hatred.

Outcome: The Supreme Court ordered disbandment of the association.

Significance: This is not a “simple posting online” hate speech case, but very important: it shows that when an organization systematically spreads racist propaganda, the state may disband it. It underscores that repeated and organized incitement can attract the strongest legal measures, not just fines.

6. Other / Broader Observations (from Cases + Commentary)

Even when hateful speech is part of “public debate” (e.g., on immigration), Finnish courts do not automatically accept it as lawful: they look at how the content is framed, not just what is said.

In online contexts, distributors (e.g., someone reposting or subtitling hateful speeches) can be criminally liable, not only the original speaker.

For public figures (politicians, MPs), their statements are under heightened scrutiny: while they have freedom of speech, they also have more influence, and courts may hold them more accountable for incitement.

Courts apply a balancing test: freedom of expression is fundamental, but it is not absolute. Insults, defamation, and incitement aimed at protected groups are constrained.

The severity of punishment depends on the content, the medium (online vs offline), the role of the person (organizer vs passive sharer), and the extent of dissemination.