Within the European Convention system, judgments have supported legal restrictions on hate speech, but also on blasphemy or religious defamation. The universal human rights instruments, particularly the ICCPR, are increasingly geared towards eradicating hate speech (speech that threatens the rights and freedoms of others), whilst forms of extreme speech that fall short of that category are to be protected rather than countered by states. The Human Rights Committee's recently adopted General Comment (No. 34) on freedom of expression, provides another strong indication that this is the envisaged way forward: repealing blasphemy and defamation bills, whilst simultaneously increasing the efforts to combat hate speech. This paper argues that it remains ever so important to continue taking stock of the legal justifications for restrictions that are suggested in this area and to scrutinize whether they are in fact sustainable from a human rights perspective - not only on paper, but also in actual practice. The paper compares and contrasts the universal monitoring bodies' approach to extreme speech with that of regional monitoring bodies, notably the European Court of Human Rights.

Additional Metadata
Keywords European Court of Human Rights, Extreme speech, Freedom of expression, Freedom of speech, General Comment No. 34, Hate speech, Human Rights Committee, Religious defamation, Religious hate speech
Persistent URL hdl.handle.net/1765/126660
Journal Gosudarstvo, Religiia, Tserkov' v Rossii i za Rubezhom/State, Religion and Church in Russia and Worldwide
Citation
Temperman, J.D. (2013). Freedom of expression and religious sensitivities in pluralist societies: Facing the challenge of extreme speech. Gosudarstvo, Religiia, Tserkov' v Rossii i za Rubezhom/State, Religion and Church in Russia and Worldwide, 31(2), 12–39. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1765/126660