"An individual is a grain of sand, among other grains of sand, which the wind stirs at will." (Crowd psychology, Gustave le Bon, French physician, anthropologist and sociologist)
Hate speech has been banned and punished since World War II! Goebbels' "spiritual mobilization", which he himself claimed was "just as necessary, perhaps more necessary than the material defense preparation of the people", and which Hitler described as "spiritual influence on the nation", inflicted evil on our civilization, the consequences of which we are still experiencing today. Historical revisionism is an echo of this evil in the present day. All attempts to minimize the consequences of these events and at the same time advocate some unsubstantiated references to those fateful times are nothing more than open calls for a repetition of the tragedy.
If anyone doubts the intentions of those behind such statements, then they should be reminded that Nazi propaganda did not "objectively investigate the truth, insofar as it is favorable to others" (Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf"), that its "level (was) adapted to the comprehension capacity of the most limited among those it wished to address", that it appealed to collective vulnerability and its "living space" (Lebensraum), that it pointed to unquestioning followership, that it relativized international public relations and rejected the Treaty of Versailles, and that it rested on the constant repetition of its stereotypes. Of course, in the case of the media space of Montenegro, this "coincidence" is intentional! And it is obvious to whom it can refer.
German philologist Viktor Klemperer, in his 1957 study "LTI - Language of the Third Reich: Notes of a Philologist" (LTI - Lingua Tertii Imperii: Notizbuch eines Philologen), in which, after 12 years of studying the language of Nazism and its ideological phraseology, which did not differ much from everyday speech, he established that "ideological contamination of the mind does not occur overnight, with the passing of a new decree regulating linguistic issues", but that it is a gradual process that penetrates the consciousness of the language user and that "words can be like small doses of arsenic: they are swallowed unnoticed, they seem to have no effect, but then, after a while, a toxic reaction nevertheless occurs".
Since the High State Prosecutor's Office from Podgorica and Bijelo Polje did not believe that the recent statements of the hierarchs of the Serbian Orthodox Church in Montenegro about Chetnik leaders and collaborators sounded like hate speech and our prosecutors did not have any reasonable suspicions that criminal acts that are prosecuted ex officio were committed, our prosecutors then referred to the reports of Pavle Đurišić to Dragoljub Mihailović from 1943, which, among other things, stated: "The following Muslim villages were completely destroyed... A total of 33 villages. Victims - Muslim fighters - about 400, women and children - about 1000", while a few months later, another report stated: "All Muslim villages in the three aforementioned districts were completely burned down, so that not a single home remained intact. During the operations, the complete destruction of the Muslim population was carried out, regardless of gender and age. The victims - our total victims were 22 dead, two of whom were accidental. Among Muslims, about 1200 fighters and up to 8000 other victims: women, elderly people and children", they probably interpret as "linguistic relativism". According to the worldview formed in this way, the terms from Article 55 of the Constitution of Montenegro "violation of guaranteed freedoms and rights or incitement of national, racial, religious and other hatred and intolerance" can be read and interpreted contrary to the declared intention.
Although the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen from 1789 established that "the free communication of ideas and opinions" is "one of the most precious human rights", it also established that "every citizen may speak, write and publish freely, except for what amounts to an abuse of this freedom in cases determined by law". Since then, the use of every human right has been limited in cases where other members of society are prevented from enjoying the same rights, because this promotes civil equality and prevents actions destructive to society. Namely, all significant international human rights agreements recognize freedom of speech as a fundamental human right, but clearly limit it in cases where it is filled with hatred. Although, due to the lack of legal uniformity between states and the absence of a legal obligation (opinio juris), hate speech has not acquired the status of customary international law ("general practice accepted as internal law"), as stated at the beginning, European legislators recognized the brutality of Nazi Germany and its propaganda of hatred as a violation of certain human principles.
European regulations and courts have taken the position that freedom of speech must be based on values that respect the individual dignity and equality of all citizens. An individual's right to expression cannot jeopardize recognized values protected (prescribed by law) by the state, while public addresses, publications and comments on social networks must not contain threatening, offensive or abusive content, nor must they incite hatred based on race, skin colour, national or religious affiliation, sexual orientation, etc. Certain European countries explicitly prohibit incitement to unlawful behaviour or violence in their regulations and have a whole set of various legal regulations intended for specific areas such as media, education, sports, culture, politics, etc. The most controversial national element in the fight against hate speech is the German criminal code, which "criminalizes Holocaust denial" or, as German courts also call it, "dealing with lies about Auschwitz".
Institutional efficiency, or rather its good practice, not only in cases of hate speech, but also in terms of solving any problem, most develops a sense of respect and legal certainty among citizens, and therefore encourages social cohesion and a sense of belonging to a particular state community.
Bonus video:
