Human Rights Tools of Militant Democracy to Counter
Disinformation –  Thoughts on Use of Article 17 of ECHR

k 2025

Human Rights Tools of Militant Democracy to Counter Disinformation – Thoughts on Use of Article 17 of ECHR

HANYCH, Monika

Základní údaje

Originální název

Human Rights Tools of Militant Democracy to Counter Disinformation – Thoughts on Use of Article 17 of ECHR

Název česky

Lidskoprávní nástroje obranyschopné democracie v boji proti dezinformacím – úvahy o použití článku 17 EÚLP

Autoři

HANYCH, Monika

Vydání

International and European Law Based Regulatory Strategies for Resilience against Dis/Misinformation Cybernetic Threats, Prague, Czech Republic, 2025

Další údaje

Jazyk

angličtina

Typ výsledku

Prezentace na konferencích

Obor

50501 Law

Utajení

není předmětem státního či obchodního tajemství

Odkazy

URL

Označené pro přenos do RIV

Organizační jednotka

Právnická fakulta

Klíčová slova česky

dezinformace; článek 17 Úmluvy; EÚLP; Úmluva

Klíčová slova anglicky

disinformation; article 17 Convention; ECHR

Příznaky

Mezinárodní význam, Recenzováno

Změněno: 25. 2. 2026 14:27, Mgr. Petra Georgala

Anotace

V originále

The rise of widespread and sophisticated online disinformation poses a fundamental challenge to the integrity of democratic processes and the effective enjoyment of human rights across Europe. The resulting strategies developed by the Council of Europe (CoE), the European Union (EU), and individual Member States reflect a necessary evolution of the concept of "self-defensive democracy," moving beyond traditional censorship models toward comprehensive resilience frameworks anchored in human rights principles. The key question is: May such a systemic intent and malicious outcome elevate disinformation beyond a simple violation of permissible limitations on speech under Article 10(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and invoke application of Article 17 of the ECHR as they – in some cases – may threaten foundational European values, including human dignity, physical and mental integrity, equality, the rule of law, or solidarity, i. e. key values of democratic society? The presentation reflects on the difficulty of using Article 10(2) for political disinformation. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) rigorously applies the necessity test, often narrowly construing legitimate aims. For instance, restrictions based on “prevention of disorder” are typically limited to the avoidance of imminent public disturbances. Content restrictions aimed purely at protecting the integrity of public debate, without resulting in immediate violence or disorder, are inherently difficult to justify under this narrow reading of Article 10(2). This practical limitation raises the question and might reinforce the need for the Article 17 forfeiture mechanism for the most serious cases. When the purpose of a communicative act is to systematically tear social cohesion and disrupt the democratic system itself, the activity aligns conceptually with the destruction of fundamental rights targeted by Article 17 ECHR, said the ECtHR before. This intellectual framing is essential, as it shifts the inquiry from whether speech should be limited to whether the right to speech itself should be forfeited due to its malicious intent to undermine the system that guarantees that right. Article 17 ECHR – the Prohibition of abuse of rights – is a powerful and specific mechanism explicitly geared to providing democracies with the means of combating acts and activities which destroy or unduly restrict fundamental rights and freedoms. Article 17 acts as the constitutional self-defense clause of the ECHR system, evolved after a horrific experience of WWII processes and abuse of law, ensuring that Convention rights, such as freedom of expression, cannot be exploited to undermine the foundational values of the Convention (democracy, equality, rule of law). Although there has been a raising consensus about the application of Article 17 on some of the most serious hateful expressions; no such agreement nor application has ever been used by the ECtHR on disinformation cases so far. However, existing ECtHR jurisprudence demonstrates that Article 17 can be applied for the most extreme forms of anti-democratic discourse, particularly hate speech and the justification of non-democratic regimes. The relevant question therefore is whether some of the most harmful disinformation speeches or targeted campaigns, e.g. undermining the core values of democracy, should be evaluated by the same criteria of Article 17 of ECHR. And whether the benefits of such assessment outweigh the risks of a possible chilling effect in society and freedom of expression.

Návaznosti

CZ.02.01.01/00/22_008/0004595, interní kód MU

Název: Za hranice bezpečnosti: role konfliktu v posilování odolnosti

Investor: Ministerstvo školství, mládeže a tělovýchovy ČR, Za hranice bezpečnosti: role konfliktu v posilování odolnosti, Priorita 1 - Výzkum a vývoj

EH22_008/0004595, projekt VaV

Název: Za hranice bezpečnosti: role konfliktu v posilování odolnosti

Citovat

HANYCH, Monika. Human Rights Tools of Militant Democracy to Counter Disinformation – Thoughts on Use of Article 17 of ECHR. In International and European Law Based Regulatory Strategies for Resilience against Dis/Misinformation Cybernetic Threats, Prague, Czech Republic. 2025.

@proceedings{2554341,
   author = {Hanych, Monika},
   booktitle = {International and European Law Based Regulatory Strategies for Resilience against Dis/Misinformation Cybernetic Threats, Prague, Czech Republic},
   keywords = {disinformation; article 17 Convention; ECHR},
   language = {eng},
   title = {Human Rights Tools of Militant Democracy to Counter Disinformation – Thoughts on Use of Article 17 of ECHR},
   url = {https://law.prf.cuni.cz/cyberconference/},
   year = {2025}
}

TY  - CONF
ID  - 2554341
AU  - Hanych, Monika
PY  - 2025
TI  - Human Rights Tools of Militant Democracy to Counter Disinformation – Thoughts on Use of Article 17 of ECHR
KW  - disinformation
KW  - article 17 Convention
KW  - ECHR
UR  - https://law.prf.cuni.cz/cyberconference/
N2  - The rise of widespread and sophisticated online disinformation poses a fundamental challenge to the integrity of democratic processes and the effective enjoyment of human rights across Europe. The resulting strategies developed by the Council of Europe (CoE), the European Union (EU), and individual Member States reflect a necessary evolution of the concept of "self-defensive democracy," moving beyond traditional censorship models toward comprehensive resilience frameworks anchored in human rights principles. The key question is: May such a systemic intent and malicious outcome elevate disinformation beyond a simple violation of permissible limitations on speech under Article 10(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and invoke application of Article 17 of the ECHR as they – in some cases – may threaten foundational European values, including human dignity, physical and mental integrity, equality, the rule of law, or solidarity, i. e. key values of democratic society? The presentation reflects on the difficulty of using Article 10(2) for political disinformation. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) rigorously applies the necessity test, often narrowly construing legitimate aims. For instance, restrictions based on “prevention of disorder” are typically limited to the avoidance of imminent public disturbances. Content restrictions aimed purely at protecting the integrity of public debate, without resulting in immediate violence or disorder, are inherently difficult to justify under this narrow reading of Article 10(2). This practical limitation raises the question and might reinforce the need for the Article 17 forfeiture mechanism for the most serious cases. When the purpose of a communicative act is to systematically tear social cohesion and disrupt the democratic system itself, the activity aligns conceptually with the destruction of fundamental rights targeted by Article 17 ECHR, said the ECtHR before. This intellectual framing is essential, as it shifts the inquiry from whether speech should be limited to whether the right to speech itself should be forfeited due to its malicious intent to undermine the system that guarantees that right. Article 17 ECHR – the Prohibition of abuse of rights – is a powerful and specific mechanism explicitly geared to providing democracies with the means of combating acts and activities which destroy or unduly restrict fundamental rights and freedoms. Article 17 acts as the constitutional self-defense clause of the ECHR system, evolved after a horrific experience of WWII processes and abuse of law, ensuring that Convention rights, such as freedom of expression, cannot be exploited to undermine the foundational values of the Convention (democracy, equality, rule of law). Although there has been a raising consensus about the application of Article 17 on some of the most serious hateful expressions; no such agreement nor application has ever been used by the ECtHR on disinformation cases so far. However, existing ECtHR jurisprudence demonstrates that Article 17 can be applied for the most extreme forms of anti-democratic discourse, particularly hate speech and the justification of non-democratic regimes. The relevant question therefore is whether some of the most harmful disinformation speeches or targeted campaigns, e.g. undermining the core values of democracy, should be evaluated by the same criteria of Article 17 of ECHR. And whether the benefits of such assessment outweigh the risks of a possible chilling effect in society and freedom of expression.
ER  -

HANYCH, Monika. Human Rights Tools of Militant Democracy to Counter Disinformation – Thoughts on Use of Article 17 of ECHR. In \textit{International and European Law Based Regulatory Strategies for Resilience against Dis/Misinformation Cybernetic Threats, Prague, Czech Republic}. 2025.

Přehled o publikaci