On the one hand, the members of the different parties represented in the Chamber of Deputies all agreed that hate speech is an issue to be condemned: if you would not say something to someone in the street, you should also not post it anonymously online.
However, when it came to how to fight against or regulate hateful comments, numerous questions were raised that were ultimately left unresolved -- even after a three-hour debate.
The request for the debate came from the majority parties, who referred to the recent case of hateful comments aimed against the president of the Association for the Support of Immigrant Workers (ASTI). However, the issue of hate speech is far more widespread than just one isolated incident. Time and time again, people are confronted with racist or sexist comments, or even death threats. In this context, Minister of Justice Sam Tanson reminded MPs that she herself received death threats earlier this year.
Tanson stated that after she had filed complaints, some people apologised to her because the police had reached out to them. The minister stressed that this made people more aware of the consequences of their actions, which is also why not every complaint leads to conviction.
Some people are willing to change when confronted with their behaviour and its consequences by the police. If you post something online, and sometimes anonymously, this does not mean that it cannot hurt someone the same way it would in real life. MP Stéphanie Empain from the Green Party (Déi Gréng) also pointed out that social media algorithms leave too much room for hate and barely allow any nuanced discussion.
Read also: “Déi Gréng” politicians attacked on social media
All parties also agreed that freedom of speech must nevertheless be protected. MP Fernand Kartheiser from the Alternative Democratic Reform Party (adr) stated that he cannot see a reason to take political action against hate speech because he considers the risk too high that this would then lead to a general suppression of all critical opinions. Instead, Kartheiser thinks that it should be left to the judicial authorities to judge on a case-to-case basis.
MP Sven Clement from the Pirate Party also stated that it should be the responsibility of the judicial authorities to decide. This role should not be left to the algorithms of the major social media networks, the MP argued, pointing out that these technical tools can, for instance, not recognise if something is meant to be satirical or artistic in nature.
Read also: “This guy should be publicly lynched!” Radicalisation via social media in Luxembourg
Meanwhile, MP Paul Galles from the Christian Social People’s Party (CSV) suggested introducing “positive counter speech” as well as support mechanism for victims during criminal trials, as they often bring back “many bad memories”.
MP Nathalie Oberweis from the Left Party (Déi Lénk) stressed the importance of defining conditions under which hate speech can be considered a criminal offence.
Audio in Luxembourgish:
