
In a new piece in the Danish newspaper Politken, Jacob Mchangama argues that, if adopted, Amnesty International Denmark’s recommendations from a new report on hate speech would undermine free speech and increase government surveillance. Here is a summary of his arguments.
- Amnesty International Denmark claims to defend free speech but argues that free speech itself is the main threat to freedom of expression, advocating for more speech restrictions.
- Amnesty wants Denmark’s racism clause (§266b) expanded to prosecute more people for “hate speech,” including in private messages, which would significantly increase government surveillance.
- Amnesty relies on vague public opinion polls and a small, self-selected study from social media and minority groups to justify claims that hate speech is widespread, omitting methodological details. Amnesty cites Ministry of Justice data to claim 13,000–23,000 people experience online hate speech but ignores that 70% of reported cases fall outside the legal definition of hate speech.
- Amnesty equates hate speech with “linguistic violence” and expands the concept to include microaggressions, indirect hate speech, and offensive political discourse, making nearly any statement punishable. Under Amnesty’s standard, statements like Denmark’s Prime Minister mentioning immigrant boys causing insecurity could be prosecuted, effectively silencing political debate.
- Amnesty argues that private hate speech should be punishable, which would require police intervention in personal texts, violating privacy and free expression norms. This framework would make discussing crime, immigration, or religious extremism legally risky, potentially stifling necessary public discourse.
- Laws intended to protect minorities often backfire, as seen in the UK and Germany, where people from the very groups these laws aim to protect have been prosecuted for speech violations. Amnesty does not consider whether expanded hate speech laws reduce discrimination or violence. Research suggests that suppressing speech often increases radicalization and social conflict.
- Authoritarian regimes use hate speech laws to silence dissent. By promoting broader speech restrictions, Amnesty risks legitimizing such practices in oppressive states.
- Suppressing controversial opinions, such as the prosecution of Dutch politician Geert Wilders, often strengthens extremist movements instead of weakening them. Despite strict hate speech laws, Germany has seen rising extremism and violence, demonstrating that legal crackdowns on speech do not necessarily reduce hate.
- Instead of defending free speech, Amnesty now supports policies that would severely restrict it, aligning with those who seek to silence controversial opinions rather than uphold democratic debate.
Read the full piece (in Danish) at the link below.
Read MoreJacob Mchangama is the Founder and Executive Director of The Future of Free Speech. He is also a research professor at Vanderbilt University and a Senior Fellow at The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE).