Which European countries have laws criminalizing online hate speech or denialism and how are they applied?
Executive summary
European countries broadly criminalise certain forms of hate speech and many have explicit prohibitions on denialism—especially Holocaust denial and genocide denial—but the scope, protected characteristics and enforcement practices differ markedly between states and are shaped by EU guidance, Council of Europe standards and domestic constitutional limits [1] [2] [3]. Enforcement ranges from prosecutions for online posts to platform takedowns under EU voluntary and regulatory regimes, while courts such as the European Court of Human Rights treat extreme cases and denialism on a case-by-case basis [4] [5] [6].
1. How the legal terrain is mapped: EU and Council of Europe frameworks versus national laws
European-level instruments set minimum expectations: the Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA criminalises public incitement to violence or hatred against groups defined by race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin and the Commission has pushed to widen the list of protected characteristics and harmonise national responses [7] [8]. The Council of Europe and its monitoring bodies urge member states to take “appropriate measures” against hate speech and track execution of ECHR judgments, but implementation is left to national law and constrained by Article 10 limits on freedom of expression [2] [3].
2. Which national laws explicitly criminalise denialism and online hate speech—clear examples
Some national statutes specifically outlaw denialism: Belgium has a Holocaust denial law enacted in 1995 that bans public Holocaust denial [3]. Sweden’s offence of hets mot folkgrupp (incitement against a population group) was extended in 2024 to cover genocide denial and denial of certain international crimes, illustrating explicit legislative expansion into denialism [3]. The Czech Republic’s Criminal Code criminalises incitement to hatred, defamation of nations and denial or justification of genocide and authorities there actively investigate and prosecute such offences, with the domestic security service monitoring extremism [3].
3. How laws are applied online: prosecutions, monitoring and platform obligations
Application splits into two enforcement tracks: criminal justice and platform moderation. Member states bring criminal prosecutions where public online expressions meet the statutory threshold for incitement or denialism, as seen in the Czech Republic’s recent convictions for defamation and genocide denial [3]. At the same time the EU has pressed tech companies to act: the voluntary EU Code of Conduct and the Digital Services Act require platforms to better police illegal content, accelerating removals of hate speech even where national prosecutions do not follow [9] [4] [10] [5].
4. Variation in scope and the role of courts—why two identical posts can have different outcomes
Not all hate speech laws cover the same protected grounds; EU criminal law focuses on race, colour, religion, descent or national and ethnic origin, while national rules may cover additional characteristics or gender-based cyber-violence under newer directives [7] [8]. The European Court of Human Rights often decides controversial cases individually, sometimes excluding the most extreme expressions but applying a case-by-case balancing test between free expression and protection from harm, which produces legal uncertainty about borderline online expressions [6].
5. Political dynamics, enforcement gaps and what reporting cannot confirm
Policy advocacy and political motives shape both expansion and enforcement: the European Commission and Parliament push harmonisation and wider protection, which some member states support while others resist on free‑speech grounds—an implicit agenda visible in repeated EU initiatives to extend “Eurocrimes” to hate speech and hate crime [11] [7]. Available sources identify specific country laws (Belgium, Sweden, Czechia) and describe EU frameworks and tech regulation, but do not provide an exhaustive, up‑to‑date catalogue of every European state’s criminal statutes or detailed enforcement statistics; comprehensive country‑by‑country enforcement data cannot be asserted from the supplied reporting [3] [1] [12].