Jupiters and Oxen

Let me state at the outset that I sincerely support efforts to bring more decency into Slovenian public life, especially politics. Our public discourse has become so coarse, petty, offensive, inappropriate, degrading, dirty, rude, aggressive, uncultured, illiterate, exclusionary, insolent, sexist, and disrespectful that it simply cannot go on like this. Law can be part of the solution, but it cannot and must not become a bludgeon used to strike down everything someone dislikes.

The mess we’re getting ourselves into in Slovenia in the name of promoting greater respect and decency in public discourse partly stems from our tendency to lump many different things together. Chief among these is the conflation of various categories of “problematic” speech—from rude to outright hateful. We also too often overlook that alongside the content and form of speech, who is speaking, about whom, and to whom also matters. In public space, various individuals and groups interact with vastly different social statuses and professional or personal circumstances. These differing contexts mean they don’t all bear the same obligations or possess the same rights in how they communicate publicly. This is not discrimination—it’s simply a fact that the appropriateness or illegality of a publicly spoken word cannot be judged in isolation from the social positions and power dynamics between speaker and subject.

Freedom of expression is protected under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It is one of the fundamental freedoms essential for the functioning of a pluralist democracy. Without freedom of expression, there can be no free exchange of opinions, no democratic oversight of government, no pluralism, and no free and fair elections. At the same time, Article 10 and the rich case law of the European Court of Human Rights allow, under strict conditions, certain restrictions on free speech to protect the public interest and the rights, freedoms, and dignity of others. These limitations must not only be prescribed by law but must also be necessary, meaning the legitimate aim cannot be achieved in a less restrictive way. These are the standards we should keep in mind when considering how to respond to the crudeness and indecency now widespread in Slovenian public life. The question is whether we can or even should respond with laws and punishments—even if the intention is noble.

The problem is that neither the Convention nor the Court's case law provides a precise legal definition of hate speech. You won’t find a simple and universally applicable measuring stick to quickly determine what’s allowed and what’s not. The Court’s guide to case law on Article 10 runs to 132 pages. The Court doesn’t usually refer to “hate speech” as such, but rather to permissible speech—speech that, despite being problematic, still enjoys protection under Article 10. Whether speech is permissible or not must be assessed case by case, depending on specific circumstances—not just the content but also the context and the personal and social standing of both speaker and subject. These factors critically influence the consequences of restricting (or not restricting) speech for both the individuals involved and for democracy more broadly.

It’s one thing when politicians talk among themselves. The public has every right to expect respectful language and avoidance of crude or offensive speech in such exchanges. This standard applies not just to formal settings like parliament but to any public communication—including on social media. These platforms are no excuse for political misbehavior. Of course, this doesn’t mean political debate must be sterile. Passionate clashes of opinion are part of pluralist democracy. But as one of my former bosses with long experience in the British Parliament liked to say: play the ball, not the man.

The traditional belief that politicians will eventually be punished at the polls for their rudeness and insults has been turned on its head by populism. Today, some politicians deliberately use inflammatory and offensive language toward their opponents and critics to stoke, direct, and exploit voter resentment, intolerance, and hatred.

The way politicians treat institutions—especially those with democratic oversight roles like the judiciary and media—is just as important. Restraint doesn’t mean criticism should be stifled; criticism is not only allowed but essential. But it should be reasoned and respectful. The tone politicians use toward these institutions reflects their respect (or lack thereof) for their constitutional roles in safeguarding democracy and the rule of law.

It is especially vital how politicians speak about social minorities. Their language shapes not only public discourse but also public attitudes toward these groups. It can profoundly affect their social standing, rights, dignity, and even physical safety. This is precisely where the danger of hate speech is greatest. The Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers defines hate speech as: “All forms of expression that spread, incite, promote or justify racial hatred, xenophobia, anti-Semitism or other forms of hatred based on intolerance, including aggressive nationalism and ethnocentrism, discrimination and hostility against minorities, migrants, and people of immigrant origin.” While this is a political definition, and not all statements within this category necessarily cross the legal threshold for restricting free speech, their possible legality does not mean they cannot or should not be condemned—especially when coming from politicians. On the contrary: the excuse of “respecting all opinions” has been precisely what has legitimized and normalized indecent, offensive, and even hateful rhetoric in Slovenia.

Finally, there’s communication between politicians and citizens. Because of its crucial role in democracy, we must be especially cautious and restrained about restricting or punishing speech in this context. That doesn’t mean we give up on encouraging respectful discourse, but the European Court of Human Rights explicitly allows for speech that “offends, shocks or disturbs.” This certainly doesn’t extend to spitting on MPs or storming the national broadcaster’s offices, as we've seen in Slovenia. Those are not expressions of free speech—they are threats to safety and physical integrity, and they must be sanctioned, either administratively or criminally.

It’s a different matter when citizens express themselves publicly, even if their words might subjectively "offend, shock, or disturb" politicians and officials. The Latin saying "Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi"—"What is permitted to Jupiter is not permitted to the ox"—cannot apply here. In democracy, it’s the opposite: politicians enjoy less protection from criticism, no matter how unfair, harsh, or noisy it may seem to them, and they bear greater responsibility than ordinary citizens.

The path to more dignity and fewer insults in Slovenian public life must begin with the Jupiters. Including, perhaps, by no longer comparing people to farm animals.