Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Criminal Law and Free Speech

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Memory and Punishment

Part of the book series: International Criminal Justice Series ((ICJS,volume 19))

  • 653 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter focuses on the tensions between the criminal offence of historical denialism and the fundamental, yet not absolute, right to freedom of expression. A clear example of this can be found in the Holocaust denial cases involving two relevant decisions by both the German and Spanish Constitutional Courts. Setting the boundary between lawful and unlawful thoughts entails the risk of violating the cornerstone principles of criminal law, namely the legality principle, the harm principle, and the last resort principle

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    On the problematic issue concerning the relationship between criminal provisions prohibiting historical denialism and the fundamental right to free speech, see generally Caruso 2016; Heinze 2016; Koltay 2016; Teruel Lozano 2015a, b; Caruso 2013; Piciocchi 2013; Hochmann 2012; Maitra and McGowan 2012, pp. 24 et seq.

  2. 2.

    The term Auschwitz lie (Auschwitzlüge) first appeared in 1973 as the title of a brochure for the book written by the German neo-Nazi Thies Christophersen on the alleged lie about the gas chambers (Die Auschwitz-Lüge, Kritik Verlag, Switzerland, 1978).

  3. 3.

    The term ‘Holocaust denial’ includes all remarks questioning the existence of the other concentration camps and the other crimes committed by the Nazis.

  4. 4.

    This law introduced several provisions of substantive and procedural criminal law as well as administrative measures to contrast the various forms of racism. Among the amendments to the Criminal Code, the offences of dissemination of propaganda of unconstitutional organizations, violence, and distribution of pornographic writings were involved. See. Jahn 1998.

  5. 5.

    On the introduction of this offence, see Rohrßen 2009, pp. 206–210; Vormbaum 2009, p. 228 et seq. On § 130 StGB, see Salomon 2012, pp. 48–50; Hellmann and Gartner 2011, pp. 961–966; Geilen 2008; Kahn 2006, p. 163 et seq.; Von Dewitz 2006, p. 106; Brugger 2003a, b, p. 1 et seq.; Kühl 2003, p. 103 et seq.; Brugger 2002, p. 20 et seq.; Dietz 1995, p. 210; Werle 1992, p. 2530.

  6. 6.

    On this amendment, see Rohrßen 2009, p. 211 et seq.; Poscher 2005, p. 1317 et seq. This provision has been subject to the review of the Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG, Judgment, 4 November 2009, 1 BvR 2150/08). The judges reaffirmed that this provision is exceptional with respect to the right to freedom of thought, provided for by Article 5 of the German Constitution , in line with the decisions no. 369/04, 370/04, 371/04, issued by the Court on 4 February 2010 (BVerfG, Decisions, 4 February 2010, nn. 369/04, 370/04, 371/04) which had stated that personal opinions, besides their intrinsic value and correctness, are protected under the German Constitution and must be balanced with other constitutional rights, such as human dignity. According to the established case law of the Court, human dignity shall indeed prevail over the right to freedom of speech, in case the exercise of the latter ends up harming the former. In this respect, see the decision issued in 1975: BVerfG, Decision, 25 February 1975, 39, 1 (67).

  7. 7.

    See Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, hereinafter the BGH), Judgment, 15 March 1994, BGHSt no. 40/97, in Neue Juristische Wochenschrift, 1994, 1421. The Court annulled the decision that had convicted Mr. Deckert for the crime provided for by §130 and referred the matter to the lower Court. According to the BGH there were no factual elements proving that Holocaust denial could harm the dignity of the Jewish German People.

  8. 8.

    At that time, the NPD had reached 5% in the elections and had been able to appoint Mr. Deckert at the German Bundestag.

  9. 9.

    BGH 1994, above n 5, 1421.

  10. 10.

    On the Deckert case, see Hochmann 2012, pp. 361–364; Wandres 2000, p. 116 et seq.

  11. 11.

    Critical of this decision, see Beisel 1995, p. 997.

  12. 12.

    See Wandres 2000, pp. 276–303; Huster 1996, p. 487; Beisel 1995, p. 998; Stein 1986, p. 277.

  13. 13.

    Indeed, besides the existing forms of insult and defamation, in 1985 § 194 StGB was introduced, punishing whoever ‘insults the memory of the victims of Nationalist Socialism’.

  14. 14.

    This provision punished those who ‘in a manner which is capable of disturbing public peace, attacks others’ human dignity, by inciting to hatred against parts of the population, to violence or arbitrary actions, by insulting, maliciously defaming, or slandering them’.

  15. 15.

    § 130 StGB, the general provision against racial discrimination , includes the prohibition of any written material inciting racial hatred, previously provided for by § 131 StGB.

  16. 16.

    There is a distinction, introduced in Germany, between simple denialism and qualified denialism. ‘Simple’ historical denialism (blosse Auschwitzlüge), which is punished without any other additional elements being required and consists of demonstrating one’s own historical conviction without incitement to violence or intolerance (for example the Romanian Law of 13 March 2002). ‘Qualified’ historical denialism (qualifizierte Auschwitzlüge), which is punished only if an inciteful element is present (for example, in Germany, Italy and Spain). The same paradigm of criminalisation has been adopted by the EU Framework Decision. See Hochmann 2012, p. 24 et seq.; Brugger 2005, p. 15; Wandres 2000, p. 96 et seq.

  17. 17.

    In this sense the German Bundestag, in German Bundestag Document (Bundestagsdrucksache), 12/6853, 24.

  18. 18.

    See, for example, BGHZ (Entscheidungen des Bundesgerichtshofes in Zivilsachen), 75, 1979, 160, 161 (BGH, 18 September 1979, no. 140/78) (‘The Zionist Swindle Case’).

  19. 19.

    See BVerfG, Judgment, 13 April 1994, no. 23/94, in Neue Juristische Wochenschrift, 1994. The Federal Constitutional Court argues that the act of questioning the Holocaust is a false representation of history (‘falsche geschichtliche Darstellung’) and is therefore in violation of the fundamental right to freedom of thought. For this reason, in the BVerfG’s established case law, the third paragraph of § 130 represents an exception to § 5 of the German Constitution .

  20. 20.

    See Toma 2014; Matuschek 2012; Weiler 2012; Hörnle 2010, p. 215 et seq.; Zabel 2010, p. 834 et seq.; Von Dewitz 2006. See also the following commentaries on the Criminal Code: Fischer 2017, p. 2002; Hörnle 2015, p. 619 et seq.; Sternberg-Lieben 2014, p. 1533; Von Bubnoff 2009, p. 445.

  21. 21.

    Fischer 2017, p. 1014. See Sternberg-Lieben 2014, p. 1533. Quantitative belittlement may consist, for example, of reducing the number of Jews killed. Qualitative belittlement may instead consist of saying that the Jewish genocide was not so bad. The offence also covers whoever puts forward racially-based ‘good reasons’ or ‘needs’ for the perpetration of the Holocaust, or that describe the crimes of the Nazi as inevitable military or police actions. Belittlement includes raising doubts.

  22. 22.

    For this offence to be perpetrated it is enough to portray these facts as ‘displeasing, but necessary’, Fischer 2017, p. 1015.

  23. 23.

    On the application of § 130, 3rd para in the case law, see Fischer 2017, p. 1014; Graf 2013; see also the website: https://dejure.org/dienste/lex/StGB/130/1.html. On the issues raised by the perpetration of these crimes through the use of internet , see, with respect to the decision of the BGH, Convicts Foreigner for Internet Posted Incitement to Racial Hatred, available at http://www.germanlawjournal.com/article.php?id=67; see also Hörnle 2001, p. 624; Morozinis 2011, p. 475 et seq. On the problems of the application of German criminal law to denialist conducts committed through Internet, see Safferling 2011, pp. 18 and ff.; Jessberger 2001.

    Concerning the case law, see, among others, Regional Court of Regensburg, Judgment, 23 September 2013, 4 Ns 102 Js 1410/2009, Higher Regional Court of Brandenburg, Beschluss vom, Judgment, 16 December 2015, 1 Ws 174/15; BGH, Judgment, 3 May 2016, 3 StR 449/15, BGH, Judgment, 27 July 2016, 3 StR 149/16 (LG Hannover). The most debated case in the public opinion relates to Ursula Haverbeck-Wetzel, a 89-year old revisionist, who was convicted many times; recently, she was sentenced by the Amtsgericht Hamburg in 2015, by the Amtsgericht Velden in 2016 and by the Amtsgericht Detmold in 2017.

  24. 24.

    The German Code of Crimes against International Law entered into force on 30 June 2002. See Bundesministerium der Justiz (Hrsg.), Arbeitsentwurf eines Gesetzes zur Einführung des Völkerstrafgesetzbuchs mit Begrüdung; Werle and Jessberger 2014, p. 151 et seq. See also Satzger 2002, p. 261; Kress 2009. Before 2002, the provisions referred to are described in the first Paragraph of § 220a StGB (‘Völkermord’, Genocide). See Werle and Jessberger 2002.

  25. 25.

    The StGB decided not to extend the scope of these acts to other genocides or serious crimes. Fischer 2017, p. 1014. See Hellmann and Gartner 2011, p. 961 et seq.

  26. 26.

    The expression ‘under the National Socialist Regime’ (‘unter der nazionalsozialistischen Herrschaft’) refers to the time when the Nazis were in power, that is, from 1933 to 1945.

  27. 27.

    Critical of this limitation Von Bubnoff 2009, p. 445.

  28. 28.

    Fischer 2017, p. 1010.

  29. 29.

    Fischer 2011, pp. 1119–1141; Fischer 1986.

  30. 30.

    Therefore, § 130 StGB reverses the burden of proof concerning conduct that would already be punishable under § 140, 2nd para. StGB, with the denial that would depend on the underlying intention of the perpetrator. See Fischer 2017, p. 1013. On the protected legal interests mentioned (human dignity, personal rights, and public peace) with respect to this offence, see Knauer 2014; Glet 2011; Jacobi 2010; Guenther 2000.

  31. 31.

    Fischer 2017, p. 1017. See also Krauß 2009, p. 501.

  32. 32.

    Miebach et al. 2012, p. 652. On this aspect, see for instance also Zabel 2010, p. 845 note 55.

  33. 33.

    Among the relevant circumstances: repeating xenophobic words in a menacing manner at a gathering of right-wing extremist or hanging a xenophobic pamphlet in a migration office (Krauß 2009, p. 457). Other elements concerning the targeted group must be assessed, as its level of homogeneity, its distinctive traits, and its level of social integration at the time. It is also necessary to consider the sensitivity of the public opinion to xenophobic, neo-Nazi or racist ideas in a particular moment in time or in certain sectors of the population, or the recognizable peculiarity of the person being targeted (as certain distinctive traits of the Jewish people), ibid., 482.

  34. 34.

    Fischer 2017, p. 1005.

  35. 35.

    See BverfG, 13 April 1994, no. 23/94, above n 17, p. 1779. See Grimm 2009, p. 557 et seq.; Visconti 2008; Brugger 2005, pp. 1–21; Haupt 2005; Brugger 2002; Finer et al. 1995, p. 35 et seq.

  36. 36.

    Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschland: an extremist right-wing party, consisting in part of neo-Nazi supporters.

  37. 37.

    The administrative authorities, through the reference to the case law of the Tribunals of first instance, have qualified the Holocaust denial as an insult to the Jewish people.

  38. 38.

    According to the appellant, these provisions would ultimately prevent an undesirable discussion on modern history and suppress historical research on the most recent events of the German history, thereby frustrating the exercise of a fundamental right.

  39. 39.

    The Federal Constitutional Court considers the offence of Holocaust denial though the lens of §5, 2nd para. of the German Constitution, as a form of exception-limitation to the right to freedom of speech. The violation of Article 5 depends on whether the balance between the right to freedom of speech and the harmed legal interest refers to the statement of a fact or the expression of an opinion.

  40. 40.

    Decision of the BVerfG (Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts), 61, 1 (9); 85, 1 (15 et seq.).

  41. 41.

    See BVerfG, point no. II of the decision: BVerfGE 61, 1 [8 f.]; 85, 1 [17].

  42. 42.

    On this very problematic issue, see generally the book of the Italian constitutional lawyer Bin 1992, p. 32 et seq.; on the conflicts between free speech and human dignity, see also Tesauro 2013, p. 50 et seq.

  43. 43.

    On the judicial precedents that played a role in the introduction of the criminal offence, see Rodríguez Montañés 2012, p. 305. The Constitutional Court had rejected the claim filed by the director of the publishing house Makoki against his conviction for insult against the Jewish people, after he published the French comic book ‘Hitler=SS’). On the Makoki case, see Martínez Sospedra 1993, p. 5785.

  44. 44.

    The Criminal Code in force at the time had been approved with Decree no. 3096 of 1973, thus before the end of Franco’s regime and the democratic transition.

  45. 45.

    See Bilbao Ubillos 2009, p. 314.

  46. 46.

    Constitutional Court of Spain, Judgment, 11 November 1991, no. 214/1991, in Jurisprudencia Constitucional, 31, 444 et seq.

  47. 47.

    Court of First Instance number 6 of Madrid (Juzgado de Primera Instancia núm. 6 de Madrid), Judgment, 16 June 1986, no. 1284/85; Regional Court of Madrid (Audiencia Territorial de Madrid), First Chamber, Judgment, 9 February 1988, Appeal no. 572/86; Supreme Court of Spain, First Chamber, Judgment, 5 December 1989, Appeal no. 771/88.

  48. 48.

    See Landa Gorostiza 2001, p. 102.

  49. 49.

    See Bilbao Ubillos 2009, pp. 318–319.

  50. 50.

    Manzanares Samaniego 2016; Gómez Tomillo 2011; Fernández Hernández 2010, pp. 533–536; Quintero Olivares and Valle-Muniz 2008; García Arán 2004, p. 2688 et seq.; Landa Gorostiza 2003, pp. 105–119.

  51. 51.

    See Gascón Cuenca 2016; Rodríguez Montañés 2012.

  52. 52.

    Article 510 of the Criminal Code states: ‘1. Those who provoke discrimination, hate or violence against groups or associations due to racist, anti-Semitic reasons or any other reason related to ideology, religion or belief, family situation, belonging to an ethnic group or race, national origin, gender, sexual preference, illness or handicap, shall be punished with a sentence of imprisonment from one to three years and a fine from six to twelve months’.

  53. 53.

    Article 615 provides: ‘Provocation, conspiracy and solicitation to commit the crimes foreseen in the preceding Chapters of this Title shall be punished with the penalty lower by one or two degrees to which the actual crime is subject’.

  54. 54.

    See for example Fernández Hernández 2010; Vives Antòn et al. 2008, p. 1150.

  55. 55.

    This crime is also a speech crime, criticized for this reason by several authors: Teruel Lozano 2015a, b, pp. 530 and ff.; Ramos Vázquez 2009, p. 122; Feijoo Sánchez 1998, p. 2267.

  56. 56.

    Spanish Supreme Court, Librería Kalki, Judgment, 12 April 2011, no. 259/2011.

  57. 57.

    Ibid.

  58. 58.

    For a detailed analysis of the provision, see Alastuey Dobón 2016; Bernal del Castillo 2016. For an analysis from a criminal - constitutional perspective, see Teruel Lozano 2015a, b.

  59. 59.

    Morales Prats and Quintero Olivares 2016; Sánchez Melgar 2016; Bidasolo et al. 2015.

  60. 60.

    On Article 510 of the Criminal Code, see de Pablo Serrano and Tapia Ballesteros 2017; Dolz Lago 2016; Teruel Lozano 2015a, pp. 1–51.

  61. 61.

    This aspect is emphasised also by Bilbao Ubillos 2009, p. 299.

  62. 62.

    This decision was not taken unanimously (see the dissenting opinions, annexed to the judgment). On this ruling, see Ramos Vázquez 2009, pp. 120–137; de la Rosa Cortina 2007, p. 6842; Landa Gorostiza 1999, p. 709.

  63. 63.

    On the decision issued in the Varela case (or Libreria Europa case), see Bilbao Ubillos 2009, pp. 323–328; Català and Pérez 2007, p. 181; Landa Gorostiza 1999, pp. 691–692. On Article 510 of the Spanish Criminal Code, see Landa Gorostiza 2012. See also de Pablo Serrano 2017, p. 8911; Bernal del Castillo 2016.

  64. 64.

    Provincial Court of Barcelona (section 3), 5 March 2008.

  65. 65.

    This norm is constitutionally legitimate according to Martínez Sospedra 2000, p. 99 et seq. Contra Feijoo Sánchez 1998.

  66. 66.

    Constitutional Court of Spain, Judgment, 7 November 2007, no. 235/2007, BOE-T-2007-21161, in BOE no. 295, 10 December 2007, 42–59.

  67. 67.

    Criticising this judgment: Suárez Espino 2008, p. 1 et seq.; Català and Pérez 2007, p. 181 et seq. With a more positive opinion, see Lascuráin Sánchez 2010, p. 1 et seq.; Ramós Vazquez 2009, p. 120 et seq. (who argues that the punishment of the act of justifying should also have been declared unconstitutional); Salvador Coderch and Rubi Puig 2008, p. 1 et seq.

  68. 68.

    Bilbao Ubillos 2009, p. 299, who qualifies the decision of the Constitutional Court as ‘correcta’.

  69. 69.

    Constitutional Court of Spain, Judgment 235/2007, above n 63, 48.

  70. 70.

    Ibid., 49.

  71. 71.

    Ibid., 46.

  72. 72.

    Critical of the interpretation provided for by the case law of the ECHR, see also Pech 2011, p. 209. In this sense, see also Cuerda Arnau 2008, p. 88, who speaks about a ‘trasposición inadecuada’.

  73. 73.

    Constitutional Court of Spain, Judgment 235/2007, above n 63, 50 (Fundamento Juridico, para 6).

  74. 74.

    On this particular aspect, see later in this paragraph.

  75. 75.

    ‘Hate speech’ is defined by referring to the judgment of the ECHR, Erdogdu v. Turkey, Judgment, 8 July 1999, Applications no. 25067/94 and 25068/94.

  76. 76.

    Unlike the types of provocation and condoning that both require direct instigation as contained in the general part of the Code. See Article 18 of the Spanish Criminal Code and Astacio Cabrera 2011; Batista Gonzáles 1997, pp. 63–68.

  77. 77.

    Constitutional Court of Spain, Judgment 235/2007, above n 63, 47.

  78. 78.

    Ibid., 48 (Fundamento Juridico, para 4).

  79. 79.

    Article 20, para. 1 of the Constitution establishes the right to ‘freely express and spread thoughts, ideas and opinions through words, works or any other means of communication’.

  80. 80.

    See Gil Gil and Maculan 2016, p. 345 et seq.

  81. 81.

    Constitutional Court of Spain, 16 December 1987, no. 199/1987 (Fundamento Juridico, para 12).

  82. 82.

    On the hate speech phenomenon in Spain, see de Pablo Serrano and Tapia Ballesteros 2017; Revenga Sánchez 2015.

  83. 83.

    Constitutional Court of Spain , Judgment 235/2007, above n 63, 52 (Fundamento Juridico, para 9).

  84. 84.

    Or at least in such a way so as to allow a considerable number of people to have access to the opinions being expressed: Constitutional Court of Spain, Judgment 235/2007, above n 63, 52 (Fundamento Juridico, para 8).

  85. 85.

    See Cueva Fernández 2012, p. 105.

  86. 86.

    Fundamento Juridico 9 of the decision. On the inconsistencies of this ruling, see Ramos Vázquez 2009.

  87. 87.

    Constitutional Court of Spain, Judgment 235/2007, above n 63, 52 (Fundamento Juridico, para 8), where the Tribunal addresses the question as to whether the endangerment of the legal interest required by offence is abstract or concrete and as to how it should be assessed.

  88. 88.

    See the ruling of the Provincial Court of Barcelona (Section 2) issued on 26 April 2010, FD 6, which upheld the conviction of Mr Varela for the crime provided for by Article 607, 2nd para of the Criminal Code.

  89. 89.

    Landa Gorostiza 2012, pp. 314–315, when examining the decision no. 259 of 11 April 2011.

  90. 90.

    See the four dissenting opinions. Bifulco defines as ‘arduous’ the possibility of distinguishing between denial and justification, see Bifulco 2012, p. 45. On such distinction, see also Landa Gorostiza 2012, pp. 314–315; Caruso 2008, p. 636.

  91. 91.

    Ramos Vázquez 2009.

  92. 92.

    On this offence and the relationship between Articles 578 and 607, 2nd para of the Criminal Code, see Ramos Vázquez 2008a, pp. 771–795; Ramos Vázquez 2008b, pp. 371–392. On Article 578 1st para of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Spain, Criminal Chamber, Luciano Varela Castro, Judgment, 25 May 2017, no. 378/2017, in particular point 4 of the decision. On Article 578 of the Criminal Code, see the judgment of the Supreme Court of Spain, Criminal Chamber, Luciano Varela Castro, Judgment, 25 May 2017, no. 378/2017, para 4.

  93. 93.

    Supreme Court of Spain, Judgment, 12 April 2011, no. 259.

  94. 94.

    Constitutional Court , Judgment 235/2007, cit., 52 (Fundamento Juridico, para 9).

References

  • Alastuey Dobón C (2016) Discurso del odio y negacionismo en la reforma del código penal de 2015. Revista Electrónica de Ciencia Penal y Criminología 18–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Astacio Cabrera JG (2011) Tratamiento jurídico-penal de la apología del terrorismo. Universidad de Granada, Granada

    Google Scholar 

  • Batista Gonzáles MP (1997) Provocación y apología. El art. 18 del nuevo Código Penal. Revista de la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad Complutense 88:63–68

    Google Scholar 

  • Beisel D (1995) Die Strafbarkeit der Auschwitzlüge. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 997–1000

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernal del Castillo J (2016) La justificación y enaltecimiento del genocidio en la Reforma del Código Penal de 2015. InDret 2

    Google Scholar 

  • Bidasolo MC et al. (2015) Comntarios al código penal. Tirant, Madrid

    Google Scholar 

  • Bifulco D (2012) Negare l’evidenza, Diritto e storia di fronte alla ‘menzogna’ di Auschwitz. Franco Angeli, Milan

    Google Scholar 

  • Bilbao Ubillos JM (2009) La negación de un genocidio no es una conducta punible (comentario de la STC 235/2007). Revista Española de Derecho Constitucional 85:314–328

    Google Scholar 

  • Bin R (1992) Diritti e argomenti. Il bilanciamento degli interessi nella giurisprudenza costituzionale. Giuffrè, Milan

    Google Scholar 

  • Brugger W (2002) The Treatment of Hate Speech in German Constitutional Law (part 1). German Law Journal 3:1–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Brugger W (2003a) The Treatment of Hate Speech in German Constitutional Law (part 1). German Law Journal 4:1–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Brugger W (2003b) The Treatment of Hate Speech in German Constitutional Law (part 2). German Law Journal 4:23–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Brugger W (2005) Ban on or Protection of Hate Speech? Some Observations Based on German and American Law. Tulane European and Civil Law Forum 17:1–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Caruso C (2008) Tra il negare e l’istigare c´è di mezzo il giustificare: su una decisione del tribunale Costituzionale spagnolo. Quaderni Costituzionali 3:635–639

    Google Scholar 

  • Caruso C (2013) La libertà di espressione in azione. Contributo a una teoria costituzionale del discorso pubblico. Bononia University Press, Bologna

    Google Scholar 

  • Caruso C (2016) Tolleranza per gli intolleranti? Una ragionevole apologia della libertà di espressione. DPCE online 1:99–114

    Google Scholar 

  • Català A, Pérez Z (2007) La negación del holocausto. A propósito de la STC 235/2007, de 7 de noviembre de 2007. Revista Europea de Derechos Fundamentales 10:181–196

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuerda Arnau ML (2008) Terrorismo y libertades políticas, Teoría & Derecho. Revista de Pensamiento Jurídico (El Estado de Derecho Frente a la amenaza del nuevo terrorismo) 3:61–97

    Google Scholar 

  • Cueva Fernández R (2012) A propósito de la Sentencia del Tribunal Supremo 259/2011: Discurso del odio, incitación y derecho al honor colectivo. ¿Una nueva vuelta de tuerca contra la prohibición del hate speech? Eunomia 99–108

    Google Scholar 

  • de la Rosa Cortina JM (2007) Negacionismo y revisionismo del genocidio: perspectiva penal y constitucional. Diario La Ley 6842

    Google Scholar 

  • de Pablo Serrano A (2017) Límites jurídico-penales del discurso (puro) del odio. Sociedad del desprecio y discurso del odio. In: Alonso L, Vàzquez V (eds) Sobre la libertad de expresión y el discurso del odio. Textos críticos, Athenaica, Seville, pp 145–165

    Google Scholar 

  • de Pablo Serrano A, Tapia Ballesteros P (2017) Discurso del odio: problemas en la delimitación del bien jurídico y en la nueva configuración del tipo penal. Diario La Ley 8911

    Google Scholar 

  • Dietz S (1995) Die Lüge von der “Auschwitzlüge” - Wie weit reicht das Recht auf Meinungsäußerung? Kritische Justiz 28:210–222

    Google Scholar 

  • Dolz Lago MJ (2016) Oído a los delitos de odio (algunas cuestiones claves sobre la reforma del art. 510 CP por LO 1/2015. Diario La Ley 8712

    Google Scholar 

  • Feijoo Sánchez BJ (1998) Reflexiones sobre los delitos de genocidio (art. 607 del Código Penal). La Ley 6:2267–2284

    Google Scholar 

  • Fernández Hernández A (2010) Delito de genocidio (art. 607). In: Álvarez Garcia FJ, Gonzáles Cussac JL (eds) Comentarios a la Reforma Penal de 2010. Tirant lo Blanc, Valencia, pp 533–536

    Google Scholar 

  • Finer SE, Bogdanor V, Rudden B (1995) Comparing Constitutions. Clarendon Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer T (1986) Öffentlicher Friede und Gedankenäußerung. Dissertation, Würzburg University

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer T (2011) Störung des Öffentlichen Friedens (§ 130 Abs. 4 StGB): Strafwürdigkeit als Tatbestandsmerkmal. Zugleich eine Besprechung von BVerfG, Beschl. vom 4. November 2009 - 1 BvR 2150/08. In: Paeffgen HU (ed) Strafrechtswissenschaft als Analyse und Konstruktion. Festschrift für Ingeborg Puppe zum 70. Geburtstag, Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, pp 1119–1141

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer T (2017) Strafgesetzbuch und Nebengesetze, § 130 StGB. Beck, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • García Arán M (2004) Artículo 607. In: Córdoba R, García Arán M (eds) Comentarios al Código penal, Parte especial, Tomo II. Marcial Pons, Madrid, pp 2688–2703

    Google Scholar 

  • Gascón Cuenca A (2016) El discurso del odio en el ordenamiento jurídico español: su adecuación a los estándares internacionales de protección. Aranzadi, Pamplona

    Google Scholar 

  • Geilen G (2008) Unvorsätzliche “Auschwitzlüge”? Bemerkungen zu § 130 Abs. 3 StGB. Festschrift für Rolf Dietrich. Herzberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Gil Gil A, Maculan E (ed.) (2016) Derecho penal internacional. Libreria Dykinson, Madrid

    Google Scholar 

  • Glet A (2011) Sozialkonstruktion und strafrechtliche Verfolgung von Hasskriminalität in Deutschland. Dissertation, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Gómez Tomillo M (ed) (2011) Comentarios al Código Penal. Lex Nova, Valladolid

    Google Scholar 

  • Graf JP (2013) BGH-Rechsprechung Strafrecht 2012–2013: die wichtigsten Entscheidungen mit Erläuterung und Praxishinweisen. De Gruyter, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimm D (2009) The Holocaust Denial Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany. In: Hare I, Weinstein J (eds) Extreme Speech and Democracy. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 557–561

    Google Scholar 

  • Guenther K (2000) The Denial of Holocaust: Employing criminal law to combat Antisemitism. Tel Aviv University Studies in Law 15:51–66

    Google Scholar 

  • Haupt CE (2005) Regulating Hate Speech - Damned If You Do and Damned If You Don’t: Lessons Learned from Comparing The German and U.S. Approaches. Boston University International Law Journal 23:299–336

    Google Scholar 

  • Heinze E (2016) Hate speech and democratic citizenship. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Hellmann M, Gartner J (2011) Neues beim Volksverhetzungstatbestand - Europäische Vorgaben und ihre Umsetzung. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 961–966

    Google Scholar 

  • Hochmann T (2012) Le négationnisme face aux limites de la liberté d’expression. Etude de droit comparé. Pedone, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Hörnle T (2001) Anmerkungen zu BGH NJW 2001, 624. Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht: 310–311

    Google Scholar 

  • Hörnle T (2010) Strafe als Reaktion auf grob anstößiges Verhalten am Beispiel von Bekenntnisbeschimpfungen und Holocaust-Leugnen (§§ 166, 130 Abs. 3 StGB). In: Rosenau H, Kim S (eds) Straftheorie und Strafgerechtigkeit. Deutsch-Japanischer Strafrechtsdialog. Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main/Berlin/Bern.Brussels.New York/Oxford/Vienna: 215–229

    Google Scholar 

  • Hörnle T (2015) Theories of Criminalization. In: Dubber MD, Hörnle T (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Criminal Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 301–314

    Google Scholar 

  • Huster S (1996) Das Verbot der “Auschwitzlüge”, die Meinungsfreiheit und das Bundesverfassungsgericht. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift: 487–491

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobi K (2010) Das Ziel des Rechtsgüterschutzes bei der Volksverhetzung. Universität Köln

    Google Scholar 

  • Jessberger F (2001) Anmerkung zur Entscheidung des Bundesgerichtshofs vom 12. Dezember 2000, 1 StR 184/00 (Verbreitung der Auschwitzlüge im Internet). Juristiche Rundschau. 492–435

    Google Scholar 

  • Jahn J (1998) Strafrechtliche Mittel gegen Rechtsextremismus: die Änderungen der §§ 130 und 86a StGB als Reaktion auf fremdenfeindliche Gewalt im Licht der Geschichte des politischen Strafrechts in Deutschland. Frankfurt am Main/Berlin/Bern/New York/Paris/Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahn RA (2006) Cross-Burning, Holocaust Denial and the Development of Hate Speech Law in the United States and Germany. University of Detroit Mercy Law Review 1:163–194

    Google Scholar 

  • Knauer F (2014) Der Schutz der Menschenwürde im Strafrecht. ZStW 126:305–336

    Google Scholar 

  • Koltay A (2016) Comparative Perspectives on the Fundamental Freedom of Expression. Wolters-Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn

    Google Scholar 

  • Krauß M (2009) Leipziger Kommentar Strafgesetzbuch: StGB Band 5: §§ 110-145d. De Gruyter, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Kress C (2009) Vom Nutzen eines deutschen Völkerstrafgesetzbuchs. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Kühl K (2003) Auschwitz-Leugnen als strafbare Volksverhetzung? In: Bernsmann K, Ulsenheimer (eds) Bochumer Beiträge zu aktuellen Strafrechtsthemen. Vorträge anläßlich des Symposions zum 70. Geburtstag von Gerd Geilen am 12./13.10.2001. Cologne, pp 103–119

    Google Scholar 

  • Landa Gorostiza JM (1999) La llamada “mentira de Auschwitz” y el “delito de provocación” a la luz del “caso Varela”: una oportunidad perdida para la cuestión de inconstitucionalidad. Actualidad Penal 36:691–692

    Google Scholar 

  • Landa Gorostiza JM (2001) La política criminal contra la xenofobia y las tendencias expansionistas del derecho penal. Comares, Granada

    Google Scholar 

  • Landa Gorostiza JM (2003) Nuevos crímenes contra la humanidad: el nuevo delito de lesa humanidad (artículo 607 Bis CP 1995) desde una perspectiva intrasistemàtica. In: Eguzkilore: Cuaderno del Instituto Vasco de Criminología 17:105–119

    Google Scholar 

  • Landa Gorostiza JM (2012) Incitación al odio: evolución jurisprudencial (1995–2011) del art. 510 CP y propuesta de lege lata, (A la vez un comentario a la STS 259/2011 —librería Kalki— y a la STC 235/2007). Revista de Derecho Penal y Criminología 7:297–346

    Google Scholar 

  • Lascuráin Sánchez JA (2010) La libertad de expresión tenía un precio. Revista Aranzadi Doctrinal 6:69–78

    Google Scholar 

  • Maitra I, McGowan MK (eds) (2012) Speech and Harm: Controversies Over Free Speech. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Manzanares Samaniego J (2016) Código penal, 2 volúmenes. Comentarios y jurisprudencia. Librería Dykinson, Madrid

    Google Scholar 

  • Martínez Sospedra M (1993) No todas las ideas son respetables. Racismo y nacionalsocialismo en el Estado constitucional democràtico. Acerca de la STC 214/1991, de 11 de noviembre. Revista General de Derecho 585:5785–5804

    Google Scholar 

  • Martínez Sospedra M (2000) Aplastar la serpiente en el huevo. Acerca de la cuestión de inconstitucionalidad promovida contra el artículo 607.2 del CP. Revista general de Derecho 664:99–116

    Google Scholar 

  • Matuschek M (2012) Erinnerungsstrafrecht. Eine Neubegründung des Verbots der Holocaustleugnung auf rechtsvergleichender und sozialphilosophischer Grundlage. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Miebach K et al. (2012) Münchener Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch: StGB Band 3: §§ 80-184g StGB. Beck, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Morales Prats F, Quintero Olivares G (ed.) (2016) Comentarios al código penal españo. 2 volúmenes. Aranzadi, Madrid

    Google Scholar 

  • Morozinis I (2011) Die Strafbarkeit der “Auschwitzlüge” im Internet, insbesondere im Hinblick auf “Streaming-Videos”. Goltdammer’s Archiv für Strafrecht 8:475–487

    Google Scholar 

  • Pech L (2011) The Law of Holocaust Denial in Europe. In: Hennebel L, Hochmann T (eds) Genocide Denials and the Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 185–284

    Google Scholar 

  • Piciocchi C (2013) La dignità come rappresentazione giuridica della condizione umana. Cedam, Padua

    Google Scholar 

  • Poscher R (2005) Neue Rechtgrundlagen gegen rechtsextremistische Versammlungen. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1316–1319

    Google Scholar 

  • Quintero Olivares G, Valle-Muniz JA (2008) Comentarios al nuevo Código Penal. Aranzadi, Pamplona

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramos Vázquez JA (2008a) Presente y futuro del delito de enaltecimiento y justificación del terrorismo. Anuario da Facultade de Dereito da Universidade da Coruña 12:771–795

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramos Vázquez AJ (2008b) Sobre la peculiar lógica de los procesos por terrorismo (las paradojas de la absolución de Otegui). In: Puente A, Zapico Barbeito M, Rodríguez Moro L (eds) Criminalidad organizada, terrorismo e inmigración. Retos contemporáneos de la política criminal. Comares, Granada, pp 371–392

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramos Vázquez JA (2009) La declaración de inconstitucionalidad del delito de “negacionismo”. Revista Penal 23:120–137

    Google Scholar 

  • Revenga Sánchez M (ed) (2015) Libertad de expresión y discursos del odio. Universidad de Alcalá/Defensor del Pueblo, Madrid

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez Montañés T (2012) Libertad de expresión, discurso extremo y delito. Una aproximación desde la Constitución a las fronteras del Derecho penal. Tirant lo Blanch, Valencia

    Google Scholar 

  • Rohrßen B (2009) Von der “Anreizung zum Klassenkampf” zur “Volksverhetzung” (§ 130 StGB). Reformdiskussion und Gesetzgebung seit dem 19. Jahrhundert. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Safferling C (2011) Internationales Strafrecht: Strafanwendungsrecht – Völkerstrafrecht - Europäisches Strafrecht. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Salomon TR (2012) Meinungsfreiheit und die Strafbarkeit des Negationismus. Zeitschrift für Rechtspolitik 48–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Salvador Coderch P, Rubi Puig A (2008) Genocide - Denial and Freedom of Speech. Comments on the Spanish Constitucional Court’s Judgment 235/2007, November 7th. InDret 4

    Google Scholar 

  • Sánchez Melgar J (2016) Código penal. Comentarios y jurisprudencia. Sepin, Madrid

    Google Scholar 

  • Satzger H (2002) German Criminal Law and the Rome Statute – A Critical Analysis of the New German Code of Crimes against International Law. International Criminal Law Review 2:261–282

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein E (1986) History Against Free Speech: The New German Law Against the “Auschwitz” – and Other – “Lies”. Michigan Law Review 85:277–324

    Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg-Lieben D (2014) § 130 StGB. In: Schönke A, Schröder H (ed.) Strafgesetzbuch. Kommentar 29. Auflage. Beck, Munich, pp 1533–1557

    Google Scholar 

  • Suárez Espino ML (2008) Comentario a la STC 235/2007, de 7 de noviembre, por la que se declara la inconstitucionalidad del delito de negación de genocidio. InDret 2

    Google Scholar 

  • Teruel Lozano GM (2015a) La libertad de expresión a los delitos de negacionismo y de provocación al odio y a la violencia: sombras sin luces en la reforma del código penal. Revista para el análisis del derecho 4:1–51

    Google Scholar 

  • Teruel Lozano GM (2015b) La lucha del Derecho contra el negacionismo: una peligrosa frontera. Estudio constitucional de los límites penales a la libertad de expresión en un ordenamiento abierto y personalista. Centro de Estudios Políticos y Constitucionales, Madrid

    Google Scholar 

  • Tesauro A (2013) Riflessioni in tema di dignità umana, bilanciamento e propaganda razzista. Giappichelli, Turin

    Google Scholar 

  • Toma J (2014) Zur Strafbarkeit und Strafwürdigkeit des Billigens, Leugnens und Verharmlosens von Völkermord und Menschlichkeitsverbrechen. Kovač, Hamburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Turienzo Fernández A (2015) El delito de negación del holocausto (Holocaust Denial) (Auschwitzlüge). InDret Vol. 1

    Google Scholar 

  • Visconti C (2008) Aspetti penalistici del discorso pubblico. Giappichelli, Turin

    Google Scholar 

  • Vives Antòn TS et al. (2008) Derecho Penal. Parte especial. Tirant lo Blanc, Valencia

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Bubnoff E (2009) § 130 StGB. In: Laufhütte HW, Rissing-van SR, Tiedemann K (eds) Strafgesetzbuch. Leipziger Kommentar. De Gruyter Recht, Berlin, pp 445–472

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Dewitz C (2006) NS-Gedankengut und Strafrecht - Die §§ 86, 86a StGB und § 130 StGB zwischen der Abwehr neonazistischer Gefahren und symbolischem Strafrecht, in Strafrechtliche Forschungsberichte aus dem Max-Planck-Institutes für ausländisches und internationales Strafrecht, Band S. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Vormbaum T (2009) Einführung in die moderne Strafrechtsgeschichte. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Wandres T (2000) Die Strafbarkeit des Auschwitz-Leugnens. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiler B (2012) Der Tatbestand “Volksverhetzung” im europäischen Vergleich: zugleich ein Beitrag zur Frage der Verfassungsmäßigkeit des § 130 Abs. 3 und 4 StGB. Kovač, Hamburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Werle G (1992) Der Holocaust als Gegenstand der bundesdeutschen Strafjustiz. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2529–2535

    Google Scholar 

  • Werle G, Jessberger F (2002) International Criminal Justice is Coming Home: The New German Code of Crimes against International Law. Criminal Law Forum 13:191–223

    Google Scholar 

  • Werle G Jessberger F (2014) Principles of International Criminal Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Zabel B (2010) Soll das Strafrecht Erinnerungen schützen? Zeitschrift für die Gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft 122:834–853

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Legal Sciences, Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna, Bologna, Italy

    Dr. Emanuela Fronza

Authors
  1. Dr. Emanuela Fronza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emanuela Fronza .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 T.M.C. Asser Press and the author

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Fronza, E. (2018). Criminal Law and Free Speech. In: Memory and Punishment. International Criminal Justice Series, vol 19. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-234-7_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-234-7_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-233-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-234-7

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation