The role of linguistic criteria in hate speech identification

This study explores the role of linguistic criteria in the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) reasoning in hate speech cases, alongside broader social, ideological, and contextual factors. It is based on a quantitative and qualitative corpus-assisted examination of 41 judgements, which are systematically assessed against analytical categories derived from Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) and the United Nations Rabat Plan of Action. The findings indicate that the Court’s reasoning follows a consistent quasi-linguistic structure, whereby descriptive legal terminology functionally corresponds to discursive strategies identified in CDA research. The Court’s assessment operates across interrelated analytical levels, encompassing micro-level discursive practices, meso-level social practices, and macro-level ideological frameworks. Linguistic characteristics of the impugned expressions are systematically examined in relation to contextual variables, including socio-political context, speaker intent and status, extent of dissemination, and likelihood of harm. Overall, the findings demonstrate an integrated evaluative model, suggesting that forensic linguistics may provide a methodologically robust basis for enhancing the consistency and transparency of judicial hate speech assessment.