In the Hungarian legal system, the anti-hate speech rules of media law provide an ad-ditional (administrative) proceeding for the media authority in parallel with proceedings under criminal law and civil law. The media authorities, over the past twenty years, have consistently set media law sanctions at a lower intervention threshold than criminal law did, and in many cases, they established media law violation in cases where criminal proceedings for incitement against a community were not initiated or ended in acquittal. The fundamental aim of media law regulation is to shape media content and the edit-ing practices of media players with a view to ensure respect for human dignity, and to prevent media from becoming an ‘amplifier’ of hateful communications. In the first four-teen years of the Hungarian media regulation, the scope of interpretation concerning anti-hate speech media law restrictions developed gradually. The authority reacted not only to individual cases, and individual communications, but also carried out targeted investigations in cases that can be described as a phenomenon in the media coverage. Besides reviewing news and information programmes, it also acted against hateful con-tents of the entertainment programmes. The new media regulation, which entered into force in 2011, partially amended the content of the former anti-hate speech regulation: in addition to the provisions of “incitement to hatred”, the former category of “offending or prejudiced content” was replaced by the prohibition of “exclusion”. The practice of the media authority has not changed as regards the assessment of the media law standard, as the authority has continued to apply it differently from the criminal law standard, con-sidering it as a lower intervention threshold. However, in comparison with pre-2010 practice, the authority initiated considerably fewer proceedings and its approach in terms of law enforcement became less characterised by adjudicating problems that can be de-scribed as phenomenon in the media coverage, no targeted proceedings of this kind were initiated. Its practice can be characterised by a couple of high profile cases with extreme sanctions, which attract great attention. These cases are important as they designate the boundaries of public communications, but in this way, media law measures are not really suitable for making any substantial changes to the characteristics of the media coverage.
Gárdos-Orosz F., Alkotmányos polgári jog? Az alapvető jogok alkalmazása a magánjogi jogvitákban,Budapest 2011.
Gárdos-Orosz F., The Regulation of Offensive Speech in the New Hungarian Civil Code, „ELTE Law Journal” 2015.
Gerards J., How to improve the necessity test of the European Court of Human Rights, “Inter-national Journal of Constitutional Law” 2013, vol. 11.Giliker P., Beckwith S., Tor t, London 2000.
Halmai G., Criminal Law as Means Against Hate Speech? The Hungarian Legal Approach, „Journal of Constitutional Law in Eastern and Cetnral Europe” 1997, vol. 4 / 1.
Halmai G, Scheppele K. L., eds. Amicus Brief for the Venice Commission on the Fourth Amendment to the Fundamental Law of Hungary, “Fundamentum” 2013, vol. 3.
Halmai G., Tóth A. Emberi jogok, Budapest 2003.Jobbágyi G., Személyi jog, Miskolc 1996.Koltay A., Polyák G., Az Alkotmánybíróság határozata a médiaszabályozás egyes kérdéseiről, “Jogesetek Magyarázata” 2012, vol. 1.
A. Koltay, The Clear and Present Danger Doctrine in Hungarian Hate Speech Laws and the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, in: Comparative Perspectives on Freedom of Expression, ed. A. Koltay, R. Weaver, M. D. Cole, S. Edland, „The Global Papers Series”, 2017, vol. II, Durham.
Michel R., Hate Speech and constitutional jurisprudence, a comparative analysis, in: The Content and Context of Hate Speech. Rethinking Regulation and Responses, ed. M. Herz, P. Molnár, Cambridge 2012.
Molnár, P., Towards Improved Policy and Hate Speech – the Clear and Present Danger Doc-trine in Hungary, in: Extreme Speech and Democracy, ed.I. Hare, J. Weinstein, Oxford 2009.
Paul B. C., Censored: How European ‘Hate Speech’ Laws are Threatening Freedom of Speech,Vienna 2012.
Sajó A., A szólásszabadság kézikönyve. Budapest 2005 Sólyom L., A személyiségi jogok elmélete, Budapest 1983.Staud L., A magánjog ethizálása – vagy pedig a természet jog felé?, “Jogállam” 1926, vol. 1–2.
Szladits K., A magyar magánjog. Általános rész. Személyi jog. Első rész, Budapest 1941.Török B., A gyűlöletbeszéd tilalmának médiajogi mércéje,in: A gyűlöletbeszéd korlátozása Magyarországon, ed. Koltay A., Budapest 2013.Vörös I., Vázlat az alapvető jogok természetéről az Alaptörvény negyedik és ötödik módosítása után, “Fundamentum” 2013, vol. 3.
Decision of the ORTT 1949/2008.
Decision of the ORTT 1996/2008.
Decision of the ORTT 2052/2009.
Decision of the ORTT 2053/2009.
Decision of the ORTT 291/2010.
Decision of the ORTT 292/2010.
Decision of the ORTT 367/2003.
Decision of the Media Council 802/2013.
Constitutional Court Decision 143/2010.
Constitutional Court Decision 1992.