Ro
En
Рy
expert in media legislation
At the same time, insult, which is defined by law as “a verbal, written or nonverbal expression deliberately offending someone, against the generally accepted norms of decent conduct in a democratic society” is forbidden. Our level of unacceptability will decide whether we are in the legal or forbidden category. Therefore, theoretically, a caricature may be deemed as an insult, in the event the representation is far beyond the moral norms accepted by the current democratic society. However, a caricature may go beyond decency, as it is a perspicuous manner of expression. There were no complex public debates or contradictory talks related to the acceptability/unacceptability of a satire or caricature. However, a new topic occurred and needs to be analysed – the hate speech. It is connected especially to discrimination.
Even if it is generally believed that Moldovans are a tolerant people, such quality is not necessarily valid for all of us. Our mentality is still impregnated with negative stereotypes related to particular ethnical groups, religions, people with a different sexual orientation or disabled people. Stereotypes are not far from hate speeches. The reality in Moldova shows we have plenty of homophobe and LGBT hate speeches. We also notice sometimes despise speeches against the representatives of certain ethnical groups or religions.
Our jurisprudence started to focus on certain related aspects. There are a series of tried cases, as well as a range of interesting judgements of the Council for Preventing and Eliminating Discrimination and Ensuring Equality (“Equality Council”).
Thus, the first case to be noticed in this respect was Oleg Brega vs. Privesc.eu, where the portal lost the case and was accused for the hate speech against people reputed or who truly are homosexual and for insulting the plaintiff by failure to moderate the chat on its site http://privesc.eu . The portal was forced to post on its first page public excuses to the plaintiff, as well as the operative part of the court judgement. The plaintiff also obtained MDL 5000 for moral damage. Another case is Genderdoc-M vs. the bishop of Balti and Falesti, Marchel. In such case, the judge ordered the bishop to disclaim the information and to apologize, as well as to pay moral damage in amount of MDL10 000 and court fees (approx. MDL 12 thousand).
Among other precedents, we could mention the Decision of 16.10.2014 issued by the Council for Preventing and Eliminating Discrimination and Ensuring Equality vs. General Media TV (Publika TV) and Hristofor Ciubotaru, as well as the decision of 13.10.2014, on the racial statements in the political speech of Renato Usatii, who used insulting words against Romani people.
Today, Moldova perceives the hate speech in the light of the antidiscrimination law, the victims being especially homosexual people. It is important to mention that the categories protected by the antidiscrimination law (different kinds of minorities) are more exposed to hate speeches than others, because a law protects them. Speeches related to a category falling under the protection of the antidiscrimination law shall be deemed as incitement to discrimination/hate speech and shall be sanctioned, while speeches related to an unprotected category shall fall under the freedom of expression.
The hate speech is forbidden, and the philosophy behind the freedom of expression provides that such freedom is legal and insured in a democratic society under the condition that we are tolerant to other views and opinions as well. Therefore, accepting intolerant trends could put an end to the freedom of expression and other rights and freedoms characteristic for the democratic society.
_______________
This article is made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The content are the responsibility of author and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.
