The Croatian Electronic Media Council issued a total of 40 measures last year for violations of the Electronic Media Act, of which only four were due to hate speech or incitement of discrimination. The European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) has called on Croatia to take stronger measures against hate speech, especially towards Roma, Serbs, and LGBT persons. While the Council states there was no significant increase in hate speech in the media, the Ombudswoman and other organizations point to the widespread presence of unacceptable speech, especially on social media. There is concern that narrow interpretations of the law and indecisiveness in sanctioning may lead to normalization of hate speech or restrictions on freedom of expression. The Council’s role is to find a balance between protecting freedom of expression and combating hate speech.
Political Perspectives:
Left: The left-leaning perspective emphasizes the widespread presence of hate speech and discrimination in Croatian media and social networks, highlighting the need for stronger regulatory measures and sanctions. It criticizes the current regulatory body for being too lenient and narrow in interpreting the law, which allows hate speech to persist and harm vulnerable groups such as Roma, Serbs, and LGBT communities. The left stresses the importance of protecting human rights and combating systemic discrimination.
Center: The centrist perspective acknowledges the existence of hate speech and discrimination but stresses the importance of balancing regulation with freedom of expression. It highlights the role of the Electronic Media Council in carefully applying measures proportionally to avoid censorship while addressing hate speech. The center perspective also notes the calls from European bodies for stronger action but supports measured and legally grounded responses to avoid overreach.
Right: The right-leaning perspective tends to emphasize the protection of freedom of expression and warns against excessive regulation that could lead to censorship. It may view some of the measures as potentially limiting free speech and stresses the importance of clear legal boundaries. The right perspective might also question the extent of the problem as portrayed by some organizations, suggesting that the media and social networks do not show a significant increase in hate speech, and that the regulatory body is appropriately cautious.
