June 18th, 2013

Top court okays stipulations banning denial of Communist, Nazi crimes

The Constitutional Court has left in place stipulations in the penal code which ban the denial of crimes committed both under Nazi or Communist regimes.

In a ruling published on the top court’s website on Tuesday, the body threw out objections by a lower court concerning charges against former Communist leader Bela Biszku.

In a public statement in 2010, Biszku referred to the events of 1956 as a counter-revolution and a national tragedy.

The prosecutor charged Biszku with publicly belittling the crimes of a totalitarian regime, but the relevant court threw out the procedure, saying that the stipulations applied by the prosecutor ran against the constitution, harmed legal safety and restricted the freedom of expression.

In its ruling passed on Monday, the Constitutional Court said that the stipulations were “a necessary and proportionate restriction of the freedom of expression.” According to the court’s reasoning, denying the crimes of Nazism or Communism hurts the dignity of both the victims of those regimes and of all democrats associating with them. Public denial of those crimes could also lead to the disturbance of public order, the court said in defence of the contested stipulations.

As a member of the steering bodies of the Communist Party and as interior minister between 1957 and 1961, Biszku was one of the officials that led Communist retaliation after the anti-Soviet revolt.

Visit www.hungarymatters.hu to receive Hungarian news agency MTI’s twice-daily newsletter.
Please note that due to a large volume of trolling and false abuse flags, we are currently only accepting comments from logged-in users.
  • Counterpoint

    Gotta keep ’em jews happy. Freedom of speech would not fit into their agenda.
    Just like the Orban gang, they prefer lies and deception.

    • Olga

      You seem to have comprehension problems due to your blind hatred of
      Jews and “the Orban gang” perhaps your energy ought to be directed to bringing Biszku to justice

      Whatever disgusting remarks Biszku made does not meet the “hate speech” criteria in countries where the legislation exists because the garbage coming out of his mouth is not going to impact negatively on a group of “identifiable people”

      This criminal should be prosecuted for murder because:

      “Mr Biszku is accused of responsibility for ordering the security forces to
      open fire on crowds in Budapest and Salgotarjan in November and
      December 1956. About 50 people were killed in those two incidents alone.

      Further charges, relating to his role in allegedly interfering with the courts
      to ensure heavy sentences, including the death sentence for the
      revolutionaries, may be added. At least 226 people were executed.”

      • Counterpoint

        I don’t care about prosecuting anyone from the distant past, “nazi” or “communist”. It would not serve any useful purpose.
        Go after the corrupt bastards who got rich since the gangster change.

  • justasking

    Bloody finally!!!

  • Firebird

    Back to the free speech vs. hate speech situation. In America, I’d find this court ruling to be unacceptable. In Hungary, a country that suffered plenty under both totalitarian governments, maybe it really is for the best.

    • Counterpoint

      The US is suffering under a totalitarian government right now, and it’s getting worse.
      The idea behind free speech is not to protect widely popular opinions, quite the opposite. If we silence dissidents, we’re heading towards fascism.

      • Firebird

        I know, what you’re saying is completely logical (your second paragraph). I just don’t know if having suffered terribly under a type of dictatorship which has been proven enables the state to enact a limitation on free speech to protect those who suffered as well as the integrity of the state. I’m happy I wasn’t among the judges who had to rule over this issue.

  • Hungary in the shitter

    “In its ruling passed on Monday, the Constitutional Court said that the stipulations were ‘a necessary and proportionate restriction of the freedom of expression.'” This is sickening. There should be no stipulations on freedom of expression, regardless of what is being expressed.

All content © 2004-2015 The All Hungary Media Group. Articles, comments and other information on the All Hungary Media Group's network of sites are provided "as is" without guarantees, warranties, or representations of any kind, and the opinions and views expressed in such articles and columns are not necessarily those of the All Hungary Media Group.