Although one sentence from the article “Beautifying a monster” written by Andrej Nikolaidis taken out of context may seem like hate speech and incitement to violence, the text must be viewed as a whole, since its essence is to remind of the genocide in Srebrenica and that the Republic of Srpska and Serbia were responsible for it. This article is actually a cry against the recurrence of such horrific crimes the history is unfortunately full of.
When distinguishing between hate speech and allowed free expression, which includes a dose of exaggeration, provocation and even insulting, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg takes into consideration whether the author of the statement spreads racist or intolerant ideas intentionally or tries to contribute to the public debate on issues of public interest . The answer to this question is sought based on the context of expression. The Court also takes into account whether such statement is made by a politician, since they are bound to be more cautious in their public appearances. Nikolaidis, although the Advisor to the President of the Assembly of Montenegro, is not a politician but a writer who had already built a provocative style, so in that sense he is not required to hold back. It is another question whether all of his provocative statements are useful or not to the person he advises, however, that has nothing to do with Nikolaidis’ right to freedom of expression.
Tea Gorjanc-Prelevic, Executive Director of the NGO Human Rights Action
