Regulating Online Hate Speech: Legal Challenges and Human Rights-Based Solutions in Ethiopia and India

Leave a Comment / Legal Articles / By

Published On: February 2nd 2026

Authored By: Netsanet Mekonnen Getaneh
Addis Ababa University

ABSTRACT

On this Article I tried to examine how online hate speech is regulated by looking at Ethiopia and India’s legal frameworks alongside international human rights standards. With the rapid growth of social media, online hate speech has expanded and now targets people and communities based on their identity, making its impact more damaging than traditional forms. Both Ethiopia and India have introduced laws to address this issue, but challenges still remain especially with definitions, enforcement, judicial interpretation, and balancing freedom of expression with protection from harm. The article highlights these gaps, reviews key laws and cases, and stresses the need for clearer definitions, human-rights-based legislation, better public awareness, and stronger digital monitoring to reduce the spread and impact of online hate speech. 

INTRODUCTION

Hate speech is not a new phenomenon, but the way it appears has changed with time. In the past, hateful expressions were mostly shared in direct, in-person settings. Today, with the rise of digital platforms, the same behaviour has shifted online and become harder to regulate. The internet gives people anonymity, speed, and reach, allowing harmful messages to travel across borders instantly. Online hate speech often targets groups based on ethnicity, religion, or political identity, and this can easily affect a country’s social harmony and political stability.

Although international human rights instruments and domestic laws try to address hate speech, regulating its online form remains complicated. Many people also confuse free expression with hate speech, which makes the debate even more difficult. This article looks at how online hate speech is regulated globally , and then compares how Ethiopia and India approach the issue within their own legal frameworks. It also offers reflections from a human rights perspective on how regulation can be improved.

UNDERSTANDING THE CONCEPT OF ONLINE HATE SPEECH

Online hate speech refers to messages or actions shared on digital platforms that insult, threaten, or degrade people because of their identity often based on characteristics they never chose, such as ethnicity, religion, or background. What makes online hate especially damaging is its speed and reach. A single post can spread to thousands within seconds, causing emotional harm that is difficult to undo.

Its effects go beyond individuals. Online hate can weaken social trust, heighten political tensions, and disrupt a country’s overall stability. In today’s world, where almost everyone is connected, people share content quickly and often without thinking. This creates room for misinformation, hateful narratives, and misleading claims to circulate widely[1]

A major challenge is the confusion between free expression and hate speech. Some view all forms of offensive speech as protected under freedom of expression, while others argue that free speech should never justify dehumanizing or threatening others. Because of this tension, countries struggle to find a balance protecting legitimate expression while preventing speech that harms communities. With social media operating across borders, online hate speech can easily spill into different societies and affect their peace and political systems.[2]

INTERNATIONAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK ON HATE SPEECH

International human rights instruments approach hate speech in different ways some address it directly, while others deal with it through broader principles like equality and freedom of expression. The UDHR[3], for instance, never uses the term “hate speech,” but its protections on freedom of expression (Art. 19), equality, and non-discrimination make it clear that expression must not be used to undermine another person’s dignity. In this sense, even though the UDHR supports the free flow of ideas, it also implies that this freedom has limits when it threatens the rights of others.

The ICCPR[4] makes this balance more explicit. Article 19 protects freedom of expression, but Article 19(3) allows restrictions when necessary to protect the rights or reputation of others. Article 20(2) goes further by requiring states to prohibit advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that incites discrimination, hostility, or violence. ICERD also reinforces this approach through Article 4, which obliges states to criminalize the spread of racist ideas or incitement[5]

Beyond these treaties, the Rabat Plan of Action gives practical guidance by introducing its well-known six-part threshold test. This test looks at the context, the identity of the speaker, intent, content, extent of dissemination, and the likelihood of harm to determine when expression crosses the line into punishable incitement[6] More recently, in 2023, the United Nations issued a policy guide specifically on addressing online hate speech, showing how urgent and complex this issue has become in the digital era[7]. 

NATIONAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK

ETHIOPIA’S APPROACH TO HATE SPEECH

When we come to our country ,  Ethiopia’s approach to hate speech, the first place I start from is Article 29 of the FDRE Constitution. It protects freedom of thought, opinion, and expression, but just like other rights, it is not absolute. It can be limited when necessary. Article 13 also plays a big role because it tells us that all constitutional rights must be interpreted in line with the international human rights treaties Ethiopia has accepted. This already links Ethiopia’s legal position with the international standards I discussed earlier[8]

As hate speech began spreading faster especially through social media the need for clearer rules became unavoidable. That is why the government introduced the Hate Speech and Disinformation Prevention and Suppression Proclamation No. 1185/2020.[9] Under Article 2(2), the law defines hate speech as a deliberate act that promotes hatred, discrimination, or attack against a person or group. Article 2(7) also explains what “dissemination” means and makes it clear that shared content can be spread through any means, though simple actions like “liking” or tagging are not treated as dissemination.

The law is straightforward: Article 4 prohibits online hate speech, and anyone who violates it faces criminal liability. Article 7(1) sets the punishment at simple imprisonment of up to two years or a fine of up to 100,000 birr, and if the hate speech results in an actual attack, the punishment increases to one to five years.

Even though Ethiopia now has a legal framework, the real difficulty is in the implementation. With the rise of digital platforms, hate speech has become more widespread and more dangerous , even contributing to violence and, in some cases, loss of life. A University of Oxford survey also showed a noticeable increase in hate speech within Ethiopia.[10]

Scholars who reviewed Proclamation No. 1185/2020 have pointed out that some provisions are still too broad and do not clearly separate the different levels of hate speech. This creates tension with Article 20(2) of the ICCPR and the six-part threshold test under the Rabat Plan of Action. There is also the question of whether the limitations meet the necessity requirement under Article 19 of the ICCPR, which insists that restrictions must be the least intrusive option while still protecting the public interest. If these standards are not carefully applied, the law could even become vulnerable to political misuse[11]

Overall, Ethiopia is trying to find the right balance protecting freedom of expression while at the same time preventing the real and sometimes deadly harm caused by hate speech. The challenge is making sure that neither goal is weakened in practice[12]

 INDIA’S APPROACH TO HATE SPEECH

India, with its large and diverse population, has tried for many years to regulate harmful expression through its legal system. Like Ethiopia, the Indian Constitution does not directly mention “hate speech,” but it deals with the issue through the right to freedom of expression. Article 19(1)(a) protects people’s right to express their views, while Article 19(2) introduces reasonable limits especially when speech threatens public order, morality, or the country’s sovereignty[13]

To address hate-driven expression more specifically, India relies on several provisions of the Penal Code. Section 153A criminalizes promoting enmity or hatred between groups based on religion, race, or language. Section 295A punishes deliberate insults to religious beliefs, and other provisions such as Sections 292, 293, and 505 deal with harmful and inflammatory messages[14] In addition, the 2021 IT Rules place obligations on social media platforms to act responsibly and remove harmful content.[15]

Recently, India has shown a stronger interest in regulating online hate speech, especially as digital communication spreads so quickly. A draft bill introduced in 2025 tries to define online hate speech separately from traditional forms and even treats some acts as serious offence where bail is not easily granted. Since the bill is still in the drafting stage, it mainly reflects India’s concern about the growing impact of online hatred.[16]

The courts have also shaped how India approaches hate speech. In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the IT Act because it was vague and created a chilling effect on free speech. The Court stressed that any restriction must meet the principles of legality, necessity, and proportionality.[17] In Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India, the Court admitted that existing laws are not enough to deal with modern forms of hate speech and asked the Law Commission to study the issue further.[18]

Despite these efforts, India still faces challenges in consistent enforcement. At times, the laws are applied unevenly or used in politically sensitive ways, which creates uncertainty about what exactly amounts to hate speech and reduces public trust. Overall, India is trying to find a balance between protecting free expression and preventing speech that can fuel hatred and violence, but achieving this balance remains difficult.[19] 

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS: ETHIOPIA AND INDIA

Although Ethiopia and India follow different legal systems, both countries face very similar challenges when it comes to regulating online hate speech. Ethiopia has a newer, more explicit criminal framework through Proclamation No. 1185/2020, while India relies on a combination of constitutional limits, older penal provisions, and strong judicial interpretation. India’s courts have developed clearer standards such as the proportionality test in Shreya Singhal which help prevent vague laws from suppressing legitimate speech. Ethiopia, on the other hand, has clearer definitions on paper but struggles with practical enforcement and risks of political misuse. In both countries, the rapid spread of digital content and the difficulty of distinguishing hate speech from protected expression remain major obstacles. Overall, each system shows that legal regulation alone is not enough; strong institutions, public awareness, and human rights based safeguards are essential.

HUMAN RIGHTS BASED SOLUTION

Hate speech is closely tied to human rights because it attacks people’s dignity and can easily lead to violence. Many people around the world have suffered, and even lost their lives, because hateful messages spread unchecked. In the digital era the problem is even worse, since one harmful post can reach thousands within minutes and affect not only individuals but also a country’s political and social stability.

When a country decides to make laws on hate speech, it has to look at the issue through a human-rights lens.[20] Online hate speech especially needs input from different professionals; if only one group drafts it, the law will have gaps. Regulating social media is already difficult, so any law in this area must be carefully designed.

Such laws also need to follow international human rights standards to avoid confusion with freedom of expression. Clear definitions are very important. For example, in the Proclamation No. 1185/2020, the phrase “deliberate act” can create uncertainty because people might defend themselves by saying they “didn’t intend” any harm. Ambiguous language like this makes enforcement harder.

Consistency in court decisions is also necessary; if judgments vary too much, the public won’t understand what the law actually requires. Awareness is equally important, because many people don’t realize the serious impact of hate speech, especially on sensitive issues like religion, ethnicity, gender or race. Over all, digital platforms need stronger systems to detect and address harmful content before it spreads widely. Without this, the damage can be far-reaching and difficult to control.[21]

CONCLUSION

To sum up, Online hate speech poses a serious threat to human rights, social harmony, and political stability. Both Ethiopia and India have developed legal frameworks to regulate it, yet gaps remain in enforcement, clarity, and judicial consistency. Effective regulation requires laws that are precise, aligned with international human rights standards, and attentive to the realities of online communication. Public awareness campaigns and strong monitoring systems on digital platforms are crucial to prevent harm. Ultimately, addressing online hate speech is not only about legal enforcement but also about protecting human dignity, promoting equality, and fostering peaceful coexistence in an increasingly connected digital world.

REFERENCES

Books and Reports

Legislation

  • Indian Penal Code 1860
  • Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021 (India)

Cases

  • Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v Union of India (2014) 10 SCC 1
  • Shreya Singhal v Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1

Online Sources

International Treaties

  • International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (adopted 21 December 1965, entered into force 4 January 1969) 660 UNTS 195
  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 23 March 1976) 999 UNTS 171
  • Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted 10 December 1948) UNGA Res 217 A(III)

[1] Biruk Paulos and Seydi Çelik, ‘Online Hate Speech in the New Digital Public Sphere: Free Speech and the Facebook’ (Dergipark, 2021) 3, 5, 9.

[2] Ifade Özgürlüğü Teorisi Işığında Sosyal Medyada Nefret Söylemini Düzenlemenin Zorlukları (202?) 99–100.

[3] Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted 10 December 1948) UNGA Res 217 A(III), art 19.

[4] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 23 March 1976) 999 UNTS 171, arts 19, 20.

[5] International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (adopted 21 December 1965, entered into force 4 January 1969) 660 UNTS 195, art 4.

[6] UNHRC, Rabat Plan of Action on the Prohibition of Advocacy of National, Racial or Religious Hatred that Constitutes Incitement to Discrimination, Hostility or Violence (2012) 35–37 https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Rabat_threshold_test.pdf

[7] United Nations, Countering and Addressing Online Hate Speech: A Guide for Policy Makers and Practitioners (2023) https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/publications-and-resources/Countering_Online_Hate_Speech_Guide_policy_makers_practitioners_July_2023.pdf

[8] Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia 1995, arts 13, 29.

[9] Hate Speech and Disinformation Prevention and Suppression Proclamation No 1185/2020 (Ethiopia) https://www.lawethiopia.com/images/HATE-SPEECH-AND-DISINFORMATION-PREVENTION-AND-SUPPRESSION-PROCLAMATION.pdf

[10] European Institute of Peace, Fake News, Misinformation and Hate Speech in Ethiopia: A Vulnerability Assessment (2021) https://www.eip.org/new-publication-fake-news-misinformation-and-hate-speech-in-ethiopia-a-vulnerability-assessment

[11] ARTICLE 19, ‘Ethiopia: Hate Speech and Disinformation Law Must Not Be Used to Suppress the Criticism of the Government’ https://www.article19.org/resources/ethiopia-hate-speech-and-disinformation-law-must-not-be-used-to-supress-the-criticism-of-the-government

[12] The Reporter Ethiopia, ‘Limitations on Freedom of Expression in Ethiopia’ (2020) https://www.thereporterethiopia.com/9990

[13] Constitution of India 1950, arts 19(1)(a), 19(2).

[14] Indian Penal Code 1860, ss 153A, 292, 293, 295A, 505.

[15] Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021 (India).

[16] SMA Legal, ‘Online Hate Speech in India: Balancing Free Speech and Regulation – A Legal Analysis’ https://www.smalegal.in/home/online-hate-speech-in-india-balancing-free-speech-and-regulation-a-legal-analysis

[17] Shreya Singhal v Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1; Rahul D Thakkar, ‘Legal Responses to Online Hate Speech in India: Evaluating Section 66A and the Supreme Court’s Judgment in Shreya Singhal v Union of India’ (Jamia Millia Islamia University) 26–27.

[18] Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v Union of India (2014) 10 SCC 1.

[19] Ibid (referring to n 16).

[20] Centre for Civil and Political Rights, Simple Guide on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR): An Overview of Articles 1–27 (2021) https://ccprcentre.org/files/media/Simple_guide_on_The_International_Covenant.pdf

[21] Defy Hate Now, Ethiopian Hate Speech and Disinformation Law (2024) https://defyhatenow.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Ethiopian-Hate-Speech-and-Disinformation-Law.pdf

Related Posts

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe
Subscribe
Scroll to Top