Abstract
The issue of racist or hate speech engages both Article 10 and Article 17 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The early admissibility decisions of the Commission, invoking Article 17 alone, or Article 10 in conjunction with Article 17, reflected a confused understanding of the relationship between the provisions. The Lehideux and Isorni vs France (1996) judgement of the European Court of Human Rights clarified that Article 17 applies only in the context of Holocaust denial and related questioning of historical facts, and as a result, racist or xenophobic speech against minorities is protected under Article 10(1) of the Convention. The article asks whether all racist speech should find protection under Article 10(1), interference being allowed only when balanced against the conditions of Article 10(2); or whether all such speech should be condemned and attacked under Article 17. The philosophical arguments and legal implications of both approaches are analysed. Finally, the desire to protect criticism of religion at the European level is explored in the context of the ‘Danish cartoons' controversy and the evolving meaning of the term ‘hate speech’.