Speech / S2
Ethnic or religious slurs
The person posts a public rant using slurs against an ethnic or religious group, saying the group is inferior and unwelcome in the country. No threat, no call to violence, no named individual.
What we score
What can the state do to the author because of the post?
Default assumptions: Unless a vignette says otherwise, the person is a 30-year-old citizen of sound mind with no criminal record, acting alone, on their own behalf and not for profit, in an ordinary residential area. Where subnational units (states, provinces, cantons, Länder) make their own law, each unit is scored and the result is weighted by population. 'The state' includes police, prosecutors, courts, regulators, tax authorities and anyone acting on their orders, including platforms obeying takedown orders.
Score anchors
Both the law score and the practice score use these anchors. Half points are used when a country sits between two of them.
| Score | What it means for this vignette |
|---|---|
| 10 | Nothing. The speech is legally protected. |
| 8 | Takedown or platform pressure only; no penalty for the author. |
| 4 | Civil liability or a civil anti-discrimination claim against the author. |
| 3 | Administrative fine or regulator sanction. |
| 2 | Criminal offence: fine, suspended sentence, or under 1 year. |
| 1 | Criminal offence: 1 to 5 years. |
| 0 | Over 5 years. |
Evidence used: Incitement-to-hatred, group-insult and communications offences; arrest and prosecution counts for online hate speech; reported cases.
How each country scores
| Country | Law | Practice | Process | Score | Why |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States | 10 | 10 | 0 | 10.0 | Slurs and claims of group inferiority without threats or incitement are protected; the Supreme Court said speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity or religion is protected as 'the thought that we hate' (Matal v. Tam). US law has no group-libel or incitement-to-hatred offence; hate-crime statutes only enhance penalties for separate crimes. No prosecutions of non-threatening online slurs reach courts. |
| Mexico | 3 | 7 | 0 | 5.4 | Group slurs calling an ethnic or religious group inferior fall within LFPED art. 9 XXVII ('incitar al odio, violencia, rechazo, burla, injuria'). CONAPRED can order courses, public notices and apologies (arts. 83-83 Bis). Mexico City's Penal Code art. 206 makes provoking hatred or harassing ('vejar') a group a crime with 1-3 years or community service, prosecuted on complaint, and several other states have similar discrimination offences. Criminal prosecutions of online slurs are rare. Weighting: about 7% (CDMX) under a criminal provision, the rest under administrative or civil exposure only. |
| New Zealand | 2 | 7 | 0 | 5.0 | Human Rights Act s131 (max 3 months or a $7,000 fine, Attorney-General consent required) covers insulting matter published with intent to excite hostility on grounds of colour, race, or ethnic or national origin, but not religion; s61 creates civil liability before the Human Rights Commission and Review Tribunal without proof of intent. The Royal Commission records a single s131 prosecution ever and notes that Wall v Fairfax made s61 liability hard to establish. A slur-laden rant could draw a Human Rights Commission complaint, but criminal charges are essentially unknown. The 2021 hate-speech reform proposals were not enacted. |
| Ireland | 1 | 6 | −0.5 | 3.5 | A slur-laden post saying an ethnic or religious group is inferior is the core target of Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989 s2 (threatening, abusive or insulting written material likely to stir up hatred), max 2 years on indictment or 6 months summarily. Enforcement is rare: FOI figures show 16 cases finalised from 2018 to September 2024, with 2 prison terms, 2 fines and 3 struck out; between 1989 and 2017 there were only 5 convictions. Gardaí do investigate reported hate posts, but most online rants draw no charge. |
| Switzerland | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1.6 | Art. 261bis para. 4 punishes publicly denigrating a group for race, ethnicity or religion 'in a manner that violates human dignity', up to 3 years or a monetary penalty, prosecuted ex officio. Calling a group inferior and unwelcome with slurs is the core case. In the EKR's 1995-2019 study, sanctions were mostly fines (356 cases) and monetary penalties (307), with 122 custodial sentences; social-media posts are typically handled by penal order. |
| Czechia | 1 | 2 | −0.5 | 1.1 | Criminal Code § 355 (defamation of a nation, race or group) carries up to 2 years in prison, or up to 3 years if committed through a publicly accessible computer network. § 356 (incitement to hatred) carries 6 months to 3 years when committed online. In 2024 police recorded 159 hate crimes, prosecuted 119 people and saw 63 convicted. Sentences for speech offences are typically suspended terms or fines. |
| Netherlands | 1 | 2 | −0.5 | 1.1 | Art. 137c Sr (group insult on race or religion, max 1 year) clearly covers the post, and art. 137d (incitement to hatred or discrimination, max 2 years) can also be charged. The Hoge Raad upheld Geert Wilders' group-insult conviction for 'fewer Moroccans' in 2021, though no penalty was imposed. The OM registered 160 specific discrimination offences in 2024, 111 of them group insult and a third committed online. Typical outcomes are fines or community service, preceded by a police investigation. |
| Singapore | 1 | 2 | −0.5 | 1.1 | Racial slurs are now charged under s40 of the Maintenance of Racial Harmony Act 2025 (in force 15 Sep 2026): fine or up to 5 years. Slurs against a religious group fall under s17F(3)-(4) of the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act 1990, also up to 5 years, if the hatred would threaten public order. Before Sept 2026 the same conduct was routinely prosecuted under Penal Code s298/298A, usually ending in fines or jail terms of weeks; prosecutors may now divert first offenders to a community remedial programme. |
| Denmark | 1 | 2 | −0.5 | 1.1 | Saying an ethnic or religious group is inferior and unwelcome, with slurs, is the core case of § 266 b straffeloven: fine or up to 2 years, and propaganda-style spreading is an aggravating factor (stk. 2). It is prosecuted by the state, not privately (§ 275). Police recorded 224 hate-speech offences in 2025; first offenders usually get day-fines, and repeat or organised posters have received short prison terms. |
| Germany | 1 | 2 | −1 | 0.6 | Calling an ethnic or religious group inferior and unwelcome, in a way capable of disturbing the public peace, is incitement to hatred under § 130(1) StGB: 3 months to 5 years. Convictions are rising (Bavaria alone convicted 402 people in 2024, up 34%); first offenders usually get fines or suspended terms. Online cases are routinely pursued with house searches and device seizures on police 'action days'. |
| United Kingdom | 0 | 2 | −1.5 | 0.0 | Publishing 'threatening, abusive or insulting' material likely to stir up racial hatred is an offence under Public Order Act 1986 s19 (E&W, NI) with a 7-year maximum (s27); Scotland's Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 s4(1) is the same for race (7 years), while religion-only slurs need threatening conduct and intent. Slur-laden posts are also routinely charged under Communications Act s127 or Malicious Communications Act s1. Police made 12,183 arrests under s127/MCA s1 in 2023 (Times FOI) against 1,119 convictions, hence the process penalty. Typical outcome for a racial-slur rant is arrest and a fine or short or suspended sentence. |