Finnish Supreme Court ruling mixed on religious free speech

Finland’s Supreme Court handed politician Päivi Räsänen a win and a loss in a ruling on Thursday. The court cleared her of charges for a tweet she sent years ago showing a Bible passage. But it found Räsänen guilty of hate speech for a 20-year-old booklet called “Male and Female He Created Them.” Räsänen called the ruling difficult. She was grateful for the acquittal, but the guilty ruling set a troubling precedent for Europe. She was considering appealing  to Europe’s top human rights court, she said at a news conference Thursday morning.

The booklet, written by Räsänen and Lutheran Bishop Juhana Pohjola, expressed their Biblical beliefs on marriage and homosexuality. In a narrow 3-2 decision, the court said both Räsänen and Pohjola were guilty of insult and ordered parts of the publication to be censored. Räsänen, Pohjola, and the booklet’s publisher were each fined several thousand euros for hate speech under the court’s ruling. Räsänen and Pohjola were previously acquitted, unanimously, of all charges by two lower courts.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the acquittal of hate speech charges regarding Räsänen’s Bible verse tweet. In 2019, Räsänen questioned the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland’s decision to partner with a Pride festival by asking how the church’s decision aligned with Romans 1:24-27. The tweet showed a photograph of the passage, which describes homosexual passions as dishonorable. Finnish prosecutors criminally charged her with hate speech for the post, and later added charges regarding the booklet. The seven-year-long legal battle led her to Finland’s Supreme Court last October, where she defended her right to speak.

How could this ruling affect Finland? The Supreme Court drew an unclear and dangerous line on what speech is or isn’t permissible in Finland, Räsänen said. This case has never been about just her, but rather about the rights of the Finnish to freely speak their beliefs, she said. This ruling could cause citizens who speak out to fear punishment under the country’s hate speech laws.

“This creates uncertainty, not only for me, but for every citizen who wishes to express their beliefs, or even more concerning for anyone who has expressed their opinions in the past,” Räsänen said. “I find it deeply troubling that after nearly seven years of investigation and legal proceedings, the majority of the court chose to overturn two previous unanimous acquittals to penalize peaceful expression.”

The ruling could also influence courts in European countries that have similar hate speech laws, said Paul Coleman, the executive director at Alliance Defending Freedom International, which legally represents Räsänen. The decision could set a low threshold for what courts consider hate speech.

How is an insult determined in a court of law? Finland’s insult charge was vague, said Coleman. The Supreme Court went through the booklet line by line and decided what sentences could hypothetically harm others. There were no witnesses or cross-examination in the trial that showed someone had actually experienced an insult. The ruling gave Finnish prosecutors the power to weaponize hate speech laws against its citizens, he said.

Dig deeper: Read my report for Liberties on Räsänen’s battle for religious freedom.