Key issues
- The situation of freedom of speech in Estonia is good, despite a certain decline in international rankings, however, various issues still require ongoing vigilance.
- Due to Russia’s aggression against Ukraine and the deteriorated security situation, access to Russian media in Estonia has been restricted, which, in this case, can be considered an adequate and necessary measure.
- Draft law to amend the regulation of incitement to hatred has been approved by the government.
- Issues related to freedom of speech and media freedom have been the subject of lively debate and several court decisions.
Political and institutional developments
The deteriorated security situation due to Russia’s aggression against Ukraine has led to changes in the media landscape. Unlike Latvia and Lithuania, Estonia has not previously significantly restricted access to Russian media. However, since the beginning of the war in Ukraine, access to Russian state media channels in Estonia has been limited. Russia’s strict restrictions on media and freedom of speech mean that these media channels do not participate in democratic debate, but pose a real risk that the Russian-speaking population may exist in a parallel society of information.
The state of freedom of speech in Estonia remains good, although vigilance is necessary. In international rankings, Estonia has fallen during the year, but the reasons do not necessarily indicate an objectively worse human rights situation. According to the assessment by Reporters Without Borders (RSF)[1], Estonia ranks eighth in the world out of 180 countries in 2023, compared to fourth position the previous year. The decline is attributed to the risk of self-censorship among journalists due to defamation laws and restrictions on access to data for data protection reasons. Lack of trust in the media and informal decision-making processes, which are not effectively reflected in officially available documents, is also mentioned. It is also noted that journalists often give up requesting information. Estonia has the best situation among the Baltic states, as there is a special process for appealing a ban on access to information.
As both defamation and data protection rules protect other human rights, and since RSF examines the situation only from the perspective of journalism, it cannot necessarily be concluded that the situation is alarming. However, it is important to be vigilant to ensure that legitimate rules are not used disproportionately. According to the Freedom House’s assessment of internet freedom[2], Estonia holds 93 points out of 100, where 100 represents perfect internet freedom. In 2021, Estonia held 94 points, and the decrease is attributed to the blocking of Russian websites, which is justified in a wartime context.
An important development is that in June 2023, the government approved a draft law on hate speech, amending the regulation of incitement to hatred in the Penal Code.[3] The need to criminalise hate speech has arisen primarily in connection with the EU Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law. The issue has been on the agenda of various government coalitions for several years. The consultation process for the draft law was short, and the civil society had little time to provide substantive feedback, but the Ministry of Justice has partially taken the feedback into account in the draft. The opposition in the Parliament has expressed that there will be a lively and intense debate during the legislative process of the draft law.
Legislative developments
In February 2022, amendments to the Media Services Act[4] were adopted to include video-sharing platforms. Provisions regarding the protection of minors and ensuring morality and legality in both media services and video-sharing platforms were added, along with other minor changes. The amendment aligns Estonian law with the EU Directive 2018/1808[5]. Other laws, such as the Electronic Communications Act, were also amended with the same law.
During the period under review, changes were also made to the Value-Added Tax Act, increasing the value-added tax on media publications from 5% to 9%.[6] This amendment received sharp criticism, for example, from the Estonian Media Companies Union.[7]
Case law
Several interesting court decisions have been made during the reporting period. For example, the Supreme Court decided on 14 March 2023 that it would not take into consideration appeals in the legal dispute between Alari Kivisaar and Katrina Raiend regarding chauvinist and racist expressions, so the decision of the Tallinn Circuit Court[8] entered into force. A more detailed case description of the decision is provided at the end of this chapter.
Another widely discussed court decision was related to the lawsuit by the public figure Brigitte Susanne Hunt against a person who made offensive comments about her. On 23 March 2023, the Supreme Court decided to uphold the plaintiff’s cassation appeal against the decisions of the Tallinn Circuit Court and Harju County Court and referred the case back to the county court for a new review.[9] Hunt sought financial compensation for non-pecuniary damage for comments made in an article published on the Õhtuleht website, which, according to her, implied that she was involved in prostitution. The circuit court mentioned in its decision, among other things, that Hunt is a public figure who provocatively exposes herself and her body for income. The court found that the plaintiff should understand that her actions may lead to negative judgments. In addition, the circuit court found that the legal proceedings themselves and the related public debate helped to eliminate the negative consequences. The Supreme Court, in line with its previous practice, found that for the award of financial compensation for non-pecuniary damage, it is sufficient to establish that the respondent is responsible for the violation of rights, and the plaintiff does not have to prove the existence of non-pecuniary damage. The Supreme Court did not agree with the opinion that the legal proceedings had negated the damage caused.
On 14 June 2022, Tallinn Circuit Court annulled the fines imposed by Harju County Court on the newspaper Eesti Ekspress and reporters Sulev Vedler and Tarmo Vahter for publishing an article containing details of criminal proceedings without the prosecutor’s permission. However, the circuit court agreed that the prosecutor may have the right to limit freedom of the press in the interest of justice. In this case, there were no specific circumstances that would justify refusing permission or any reason to believe that the publication of the article (related to Swedbank’s money laundering) harmed the interests of justice. On 31 January 2023, the Supreme Court dismissed the prosecutor’s appeal. The decision emphasised that limiting freedom of the press for the protection of criminal proceedings is not contrary to freedom of speech, as confirmed in several judgments by the European Court of Human Rights. However, it also highlighted the essential role of the media in a democratic society and emphasised that imposing fines on the media must be very clearly justified.[10]
Statistics and surveys
In 2022, the Press Council received 33 complaints and issued 31 decisions (compared to 67 complaints and 60 decisions in 2021). Of the decisions in 2022, 20 were acquittals and 22 were condemnations (compared to 37 acquittals and 23 condemnations in 2021).[11]
One notable research project is SafeNet, led by the International Network Against Cyber Hate (INACH), with the participation of the Estonian Human Rights Centre. The project involves monitoring social media to identify and analyse various forms of hate speech. In the Estonian-language social media sphere, hate speech is primarily directed against refugees and sexual minorities.[12]
Promising practices
Estonia’s freedom of speech situation remains good in international comparison, especially concerning internet freedom. The high level and well-functioning e-state contributes to transparency, and Estonia remains active in the context of internet self-regulation globally. Web constables remain a notable example, gaining international attention.[13]
During this period, the Supreme Court has resolved several cases related to freedom of speech, demonstrating a positive and promising practice in weighing different human rights, analysing and taking into account decisions of the European Court of Human Rights.[14]
Noteworthy public discussions
The aforementioned legislative changes have sparked public debate, especially the draft law on hate speech, which has become a particular point of contention for the opposition.
In July 2023, a discussion arose regarding the proposal to task the Consumer Protection and Technical Regulatory Authority (TTJA) with verifying the impartiality and accuracy of news broadcasts of foreign media channels transmitted in Estonia.[15] TTJA officials proposed that media service providers should be obligated to present truthful and impartial views in news broadcasts. TTJA explained that in the case of media service providers located in Estonia, the law provides for such a check in the process of issuing a permit, and the same check should also apply to foreign channels, for example in connection with the obligation to ensure that the channels are not subject to EU or UN sanctions. Systems have been implemented in Latvia and Lithuania where the connections of the actual beneficiaries of the channel are examined before allowing it into the market. The potential role of security agencies in making decisions about media content received significant attention in the public discussion, with legal arguments remaining largely in the background.
Trends and future outlook
Globally, social media has brought about many changes and challenges in the media and freedom of speech landscape. In Estonia, as a country with high internet usage, these impacts are clearly evident. Recent amendments to EU laws, and consequently Estonian laws, regarding video sharing, for example, illustrate attempts to extend existing regulations to new areas. However, as social media often lacks professional editorial control, the application of media ethics, or specialised training for content creators, it is questionable whether existing rules can play a role as social media becomes increasingly important. Recent developments at the global and EU level aim to establish greater responsibility and the ability to control and, if necessary, penalise these platforms through which content reaches users.
The reduced accessibility of Russian media may have broader positive effects in Estonia if it leads to greater space for local or other democratic countries’ Russian-language media. It is too early to assess the effects due to the ongoing state of war.
Case description
On 14 March 2023, the Supreme Court decided not to take into consideration appeals in the legal dispute between Alari Kivisaar and Katrina Raiend that had lasted for over two years. Therefore, the decision of the Tallinn Circuit Court of 30 November 2022[16] entered into force. The Estonian Human Rights Centre, together with the law firm Liverte, supported Katrina Raiend in the legal proceedings through strategic litigation. The decision of the Tallinn Circuit Court confirmed that Kivisaar’s statements on the Sky Plus Morning Programme were chauvinistic and racist, spreading racist stereotypes. The ruling was significant as it, for the first time in Estonian domestic case law, addressed the nature of racist and chauvinistic speech and established clear boundaries for its use in the public sphere.[17] Such a precedent is needed because it has been observed that in the media, there is often a lack of understanding of when statements are clearly hostile. Since there is no effective hate speech regulation, there is a lack of direct precedent. The discussion shows a confusion between excessive “political correctness” and what exceeds the boundaries of a civilised society.
The ruling also demonstrated that a petition is an allowed and legitimate way to express an opinion. Social media makes it easy to create and widely distribute petitions. However, the court found that certain positions in the petition were not accurate, including information taken from an article published by the Estonian Public Broadcasting (ERR). This stance is concerning, as it is difficult for individuals to verify published information, and the principle of trust should apply to information published by the Estonian Public Broadcasting.
Recommendations
- The law criminalising hate speech must be passed, but it must ensure a clear and proportionate prohibition.
- It is necessary to use the opportunity, when Russian media is restricted, to focus attention on the non-Estonian-speaking, mainly Russian-speaking population, to ensure a unified information space.
- It is necessary to analyse and participate in international discussions on what measures are effective for proportional regulation of social media.
[1] Reporters without Borders (RSF). Press Freedom Index 2023. Estonia.
[2] Freedom House. Freedom on the Net 2022. Estonia.
[3] Krjukov, A. 2023. Valitsus kiitis heaks vaenukõne eelnõu, ERR, 08.06.2023.
[4] Riigi Teataja. 2022. Meediateenuste seaduse muutmise ja sellega seonduvalt teiste seaduste muutmise seadus. RT I, 27.02.2022, 1.
[5] Euroopa Liidu Teataja. 2018. Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu direktiiv (EL) 2018/1808, millega muudetakse direktiivi 2010/13/EL audiovisuaalmeedia teenuste osutamist käsitlevate liikmesriikide teatavate õigus- ja haldusnormide koordineerimise kohta, et võtta arvesse muutuvat turuolukorda, 14.11.2018, L 303/69.
[6] Riigi Teataja. 2023. Käibemaksuseaduse muutmise seadus. RT I, 01.07.2023, 2.
[7] Eesti Meediaettevõtete Liit. 2023. Meedialiit: Ajakirjanduse käibemaksu tõus annab hoobi Eesti julgeolekule, 8. juuni 2023.
[8] Tallinna Ringkonnakohtu 30.11.2022 otsus kohtuasjas nr 2-20-11009.
[9] Riigikohtu tsiviilkolleegiumi 23.03.2023 otsus kohtuasjas nr 2-21-5449.
[10] Riigikohtu kriminaalkolleegiumi 31.01.2023 määrus kohtuasjas nr 1-22-1949.
[11] Eesti Meediaettevõtete Liit. Pressinõukogu kaebuste statistika 2002 – 2022.
[12] Grossthal, K. 2023. Eestikeelses sotsiaalmeedias vaenatakse enim pagulasi ja seksuaalvähemusi, Eesti Inimõiguste Keskus, 27.06.2023.
[13] Politsei- ja Piirivalveamet. Veebipolitseinikud.
[14] Riigikohtu kriminaalkolleegiumi 31.01.2023 määrus kohtuasjas nr 1-22-1949.
[15] Kiisler, I. 2023. TTJA tahab hakata tuvastama uudistesaadete erapooletust ja tõelevastavust, ERR, 04.07.2023.
[16] Tallinna Ringkonnakohtu 30.11.2022 otsus kohtuasjas nr 2-20-11009.
[17] Grossthal, K. 2023. Kivisaar versus Raiend lõppakord, Eesti Inimõiguste Keskus, 15.03.2023.
