This compact and accessible text provides a forceful reminder of the precarious balance that exists across Europe between protecting freedom of speech and proscribing hate speech. Paul Coleman, a member of the United States-based organisation Alliance Defending Freedom (which ‘primarily defends and advocates for religious liberty’), asserts that ‘“hate speech” laws are illiberal and dangerous’ – and that this is a particular threat to freedom of religion. Notably, in constructing this claim, he makes frequent references to cases of religious freedom of speech (pp 35–63).

In Part One, the introduction sets out broad objections to the growing expansion of hate speech laws. All too often these ‘can be an effective tool in silencing controversial views and shutting down debate’ (p 6). A chief concern is that ‘there is no universally recognized understanding of what is considered “hate speech”’ and that this is reflected in national provisions across Europe. Coleman identifies seven problematic features of such provisions, a recurring theme being inadequate definition of the conduct and/or result(s) required for these offences. Accordingly, he argues that hate speech laws are vaguely worded, contain a large subjective element, do not necessarily require a falsehood, rarely require a victim, often only protect certain people, are arbitrarily enforced and are often criminal in nature (pp 7–9). In response, he submits that hate speech should only be prevented ‘where there is an incitement to imminent violence’ (see, for example, pp 11, 75–80, 85). He returns to this idea in Chapter 3.

Chapter 1 seeks to explore freedom of speech within the framework of international human rights standards, placing the contemporary controversies on hate speech in historical context. Chapter 2 investigates the ways in which hate speech laws are applied across different European jurisdictions. It contains a non-exhaustive collection of civil and criminal cases where hate speech laws threatened freedom of speech. Significantly, within the criminal proceedings listed, it records whether an investigation was dropped or prosecuted and, where prosecuted, whether the prosecution was successful or unsuccessful. Intriguingly, this exercise demonstrates that many hate speech cases across Europe do not progress past the initial formative investigation stage. Where they do, a significant number are unsuccessfully prosecuted or, where prosecutions are successful, convictions are later overturned on appeal. Notwithstanding this, Coleman maintains that a hate speech investigation of itself (particularly where it is pursued no further) often blocks rational discussion and unfairly stigmatises those against whom the investigation is dropped. Where investigations do lead to hate speech charges, there is frequently a lack of consistency in deciding whether to prosecute and, unlike in cases of defamation, the absence of a defence of truth.

Against this backdrop, Chapter 3 considers the future for Europe's hate speech laws and assesses the direction in which such protection may go if left unchecked. Coleman asks whether Europe is sliding into draconian censorship and wryly predicts that hate speech legislation may soon be invoked to address ‘negative gender stereotypes’ and ‘gender identity’ (pp 64–65). However, he is clear that current trends should not automatically affirm any bleak Orwellian outlook. In the context of the United Kingdom, he supports reforms proposing the removal of ‘insulting’ from section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 (pp 72–73) so that only ‘threatening’ or ‘abusive’ words (when not directed against a specific person) should amount to hate speech. Further, he elaborates on his preferred higher threshold of forbidding free speech only where it incites violence, not hatred. He is sceptical of any explicit causal link between espousing hatred and encouraging violence. Even if such a link exists, he advocates a liberal US First Amendment-style approach to freedom of speech in contrast to the censorship ‘creep’ which pervades the nations of Europe. Interestingly, he notes that such an accepting approach to all forms of speech (short of incitement to hatred) may especially galvanise communities to rally peacefully against preachers of hate, as in US cases such as Snyder v Phelps (pp 83–84). He contends that this is preferable to the use of coercive criminal sanctions to combat hate. Finally, Part Two of the book draws the preceding content together by setting out the texts of international, regional and domestic hate speech provisions across chapters A, B and C respectively (pp 91–135).

Coleman's text does not purport to be an academic treatise on freedom of speech. Rather, it offers a useful, if brief, snapshot of the relevant debates concerning the reach of hate speech laws today in different European countries. Readers of this journal will be well acquainted with many of the religious freedom of speech cases to which Coleman refers. They will also note how the call to remove ‘insulting’ from section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 has now been heard by the UK Government, this change recently being effected by section 57 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 (thereby taking steps to address any over-zealous domestic bans on hate speech).Footnote ³ Owing to the limited scope of the book, there is little room to examine deeper conceptual and normative questions relating to hate speech prohibition. Similarly, there is no opportunity to probe alternative solutions to banning hate speech so as to tackle associated root causes of prejudice, for example prevention through education or training in equality and diversity. Nevertheless, with this in mind, the book affords a very helpful and, at times, sobering reflection on the key matters that continue to pervade the hate speech versus freedom of speech debate.