Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What laws in Europe criminalize hate speech or extremist content that doesn't directly call for violence?
Executive summary
European law already criminalises certain forms of non-violent hate speech and “extremist” content, but mostly where it targets specific protected characteristics (race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin) or is linked to terrorism; the EU Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA and related EU practice underpin this limited criminalisation [1] [2]. Separately, the EU’s Terrorist Content Regulation and the Digital Services Act create fast takedown duties for terrorist/violent extremist material and oblige platforms to act quickly — e.g., removal of terrorist content within one hour after an order — but those rules focus on terrorist content and platform responsibility rather than widening criminal offences for non‑violent extremist expression [3] [4] [5].
1. EU-wide criminal law: narrow scope, race/ethnicity at centre
EU criminal law that harmonises hate‑speech offences currently applies chiefly to expressions targeting a limited set of characteristics — race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin — under instruments rooted in the Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA; the Commission has proposed extending the list but, as of recent briefings, the criminal law framework remains limited to those grounds [1] [2] [6].
2. National variation: Member States criminalise more, in many ways
Member states have divergent laws: most EU countries criminalise public incitement of hatred, violence or discrimination based on race and similar grounds, but there is significant variation in which characteristics or non‑violent expressions are criminalised (e.g., sexual orientation or gender identity protections vary) — ILGA‑Europe and comparative briefings document these differences [7] [8] [2].
3. Extremist content vs. hate speech: different legal tools and aims
The EU treats “terrorist” or violent extremist content differently from non‑violent hate speech. Regulation on addressing the dissemination of terrorist content online obliges platforms to remove terrorist content rapidly (within one hour of an order) and includes enforcement and transparency measures; that Regulation targets material linked to terrorist acts, recruitment or glorification, not all non‑violent extremist rhetoric [3] [4] [5].
4. Platforms, takedowns and private moderation: speed and liability incentives
EU regulatory architecture (DSA, the Code of Conduct+, and the Terrorist Content Regulation) creates strong incentives for platforms to take down illegal content quickly and to report and justify removals; these rules increase platform liability risk and can lead to swift removals even where national criminal law is the defining standard for illegality [9] [10] [11].
5. Proposals to widen criminalisation: political momentum and limits
There is active political momentum in the European Commission and European Parliament to list “hate speech and hate crime” as EU crimes under Article 83[12] TFEU so the Commission could propose harmonised criminal rules across more protected characteristics (gender, sexual orientation, age, disability). Parliamentarians have urged action, but current EU criminal law still covers only the narrower set of characteristics noted above [6] [13] [2].
6. Free expression tension: legal and practical tradeoffs
EU and Council of Europe sources emphasise that restrictions must respect freedom of expression and human‑rights standards; commentators and civil‑society actors warn of chilling effects where platforms over‑remove lawful but offensive content because of regulatory pressure, and EU instruments attempt transparency and appeal safeguards to counter that risk [14] [15] [16].
7. “Grey‑zone” content: enforcement challenges and technology limits
Analysts and policy briefs flag a persistent “grey zone” between lawful, offensive, or radical opinion and criminal incitement; fast removal windows (e.g., one hour for terrorist content) and automated tools increase the risk of erroneous takedowns, especially for smaller platforms with fewer moderation resources [17] [18].
8. What the sources don’t settle
Available sources do not give a single, exhaustive list of every European national law criminalising non‑violent hate or extremist speech; instead, they present EU‑level instruments, proposals to widen criminalisation, and country‑by‑country variation without providing full penal codes for each member state [2] [7].
Conclusion — the frame to watch: EU law currently criminalises some non‑violent hate speech (principally linked to race/ethnicity/religion per the Framework Decision), and the bloc has powerful regulatory tools to force fast removal of terrorist content from platforms, while debates continue over whether and how to harmonise or expand criminal prohibitions to cover other groups or non‑violent extremist expression [1] [2] [3].