After years of prosecution, a parliamentarian named Päivi Maria Räsänen and a bishop in Finland have been found guilty of hate speech by Finland’s supreme court for their 2004 publication criticizing homosexuality, for which she was fined about $2,000. Copies of the pamphlet and references to it must be destroyed. Many U.S. Christians have decried the ruling as an assault on religious freedom and for evincing increased European hostility to Christianity.
These concerns are valid but miss the larger picture. Governments should not criminally punish any kind of speech, whether Christian, anarchist, Marxist, Muslim, nudist, or Buddhist.
And these concerns possibly don’t fully appreciate that the United States Bill of Rights, with its First Amendment (Congress shall make no laws…abridging the freedom of speech) is unique in the world. Other Western democracies lack it, and more permissively have always allowed prosecution of certain speech, such as defamation or sometimes forms of blasphemy or political extremism. Of late the fashion has been for laws against “hate” speech directed at groups, racial, ethnic, religious, and sexual.
The Finnish court ruling should be denounced not just as an attack on traditional Christianity but more broadly an attack on freedom of speech and liberty for all. Hate speech laws, with their identitarian political assumptions, make such prosecution of free speech inevitable. Any religious or cultural disagreement potentially is deemed “hateful.”
And of course, America’s First Amendment protects “hate” speech. In America, unlike in much of Europe or Canada, you can march under the Nazi flag, deny or minimize the Holocaust, smear immigrants, denounce whole religions, espouse racism, join the Ku Klux Klan, extol Joseph Stalin or Pol Pot, even defend (but not practice) child abuse. The First Amendment of course also defends religious liberty for all, including Baptists, Satanists, Catholics, Hindus, Pentecostals, and witches.
In America, you can be an antisemite and denounce antisemitism. You can be a Catholic or an anti-Catholic bigot. You can be a Communist and an atheist, and you can fiercely reject both as wicked. You can say horrible enormities about anyone, and they can respond with equal force. Even defamation, unlike in Europe, is largely a civil, not a criminal matter. Threats of physical violence are criminal but only if direct and plausible.
The American tradition of free speech is rooted in our Founders’ fear of state tyranny. A government that can legally suppress “bad” speech can legally suppress whatever is inconvenient for it or whatever is disruptive to the powerful. All governments, all groups, and all people, left to their own caprice, will abuse any power to silence others. The Finnish parliamentarian was queried by the prosecutor about her personal theology, which should never be law enforcement’s concern, and which most Americans would find intolerable.
Our American tradition also has an optimistic confidence that, by common grace, truth, decency, and humanity will prevail if allowed an open contest. Falsehood, bigotry, and infamy will fail on their own contradictions if challenged. There is also the underlying assumption that every human, as a creature of God, should be free to come to their conclusions, without coercion or threats. Virtue is only virtue if freely chosen.
By and large, our American tradition has worked. Poisonous perspectives may arise but they typically recede eventually, exposed for what they are. More importantly, different religious, cultural and political perspectives constantly contend, none of them fully monopolizing truth, and each making its case, with the resulting debate hopefully uplifting for all. This energy is the secret sauce of American dynamism. We debate, we clash, we learn, we move forward, stronger than before.
Unfortunately, such free speech is unusual in the world. Human nature often fears open debate. We want protection. Instead of rebutting what we disapprove, we want it suppressed. Authoritarians of all stripes naturally hate free speech as intrinsically threatening to them and their power. Free speech implies everyone is equal and has rights. This concept remains and will always be contested.
Sadly, some American Christians are losing faith in the First Amendment and free speech. Growing voices claim this experiment has failed. They advocate blasphemy laws and other restrictions, evidently afraid that Christianity cannot stand on its own, without government props. There is also the more common habit of defending Christian expressions to the exclusion of other expressions, as though religious liberty and free speech are only for Christians, especially those like us. Such an attitude is a shortsighted mistake, pragmatically and theologically. Christians rightly defend the humanity of all, equally. And Christians should fear any government coercion of speech and belief against any groups or people.
Christians should defend the Finnish parliamentarian and her bishop not just because they are fellow Christians but because they are humans entitled to their own beliefs and free expression without fear. And we should oppose the Finnish court ruling, and all likeminded state coercions against free speech, as intrinsically hostile to liberty and humanity.
Theoretically, in Finland, and elsewhere, atheists or Muslims or whomever could be prosecuted for critiquing sects of Christians. Christians should reject that course. Instead, Christians should invite all people of good will, and even those without it but who are smart, to join in defending free speech for all, because it protects everyone from humanity’s worst impulses.
More from IRD:
Continuing Challenges to Religious Freedom in Europe and America
Comment by David on March 28, 2026 at 8:02 am
When the Statue of Liberty was sent to the US, one wit noted that it came from France, which had too little liberty, to America, which had too much. No right in our constitution is without limits. A revived Church of the Aztecs would not be permitted to perform human sacrifices. As noted long ago, freedom of speech does not extend to maliciously yelling “fire” to provoke panic. Laws against slander and libel should not exist in a completely free society. It is possible to promote an idea without attacking those who think otherwise.
Comment by Gary Starkey on March 28, 2026 at 11:58 am
Thanks, Mark, for this summary. Free speech is embattled even here, and we are very sleepy in response. Thanks also to IRD for its bold trumpet.
Comment by Qohelet on March 28, 2026 at 11:01 pm
Ten years ago I might have agreed with this, but the United States is on the verge of collapse because our people seem to have forgotten what fascism is and why it is dangerous.
We never should have allowed the right wing media a safe space to lie constantly.
Comment by Skipper on March 29, 2026 at 9:25 am
Mark:
This is a personal comment to you. I didn’t see your email. It was suggested you start a GMC church in the D.C. Area. That’s a great suggestion! There is bound to be people wanting a church in the area, just waiting for someone to invite them and you know how to do that.
Wellspring GMC, Guckstadt, MS. began with people leaving their UMC after losing the vote. 62 percent voted to leave, so the Progressive minority took the property. An Anglican church offered the use of their church building for services. They had to meet at 5:00 Sunday afternoon, but it was a start. They held Sunday School at 4:00. A year later they purchased a warehouse and converted it into a church. They invited different preachers to help fill in the first year, and they came. There must be a church in your area friendly toward Christians! Go for it!
Comment by Different Steve on March 29, 2026 at 10:09 am
Here’s why Stalin and the Soviet propaganda machine often used terms like “fascist” instead of just “enemy” during the 1930s:
International Context:
By the mid-1930s, fascism in Europe — especially Mussolini’s Italy and Hitler’s Germany — was seen as the existential enemy of communism.
Calling someone a “fascist” immediately framed them as not just anti-Soviet, but aligned with a globally hostile ideology.
This made purges seem not only internally justified but part of defending the USSR against an international threat.
Moral and Emotional Weight:
“Fascist” carried strong negative connotations, far stronger than “counter-revolutionary” for the general public.
Ordinary citizens could be convinced that the accused were evil, foreign-aligned, and dangerous.
This helped Stalin justify arrests and executions in the public eye, making fear a tool for obedience.
Political Flexibility:
The term was vague enough to apply to anyone — party officials, military leaders, intellectuals, peasants — without needing real evidence.
Accusing someone of being a “fascist” made it easier to fabricate charges, extract confessions, or meet quotas for arrests.
Propaganda Messaging:
Newspapers, radio, and posters could constantly warn about “fascist conspiracies” inside the USSR.
This reinforced paranoia and loyalty to Stalin, while isolating the accused as an unmistakable enemy of the people.
In short, “fascist” was a powerful psychological and political weapon: scary, universally hated, and flexible enough to target anyone Stalin wanted eliminated. It wasn’t about actual fascist beliefs — it was about justifying terror and consolidating control.
Comment by Different Steve on March 29, 2026 at 10:10 am
Here are some notable examples of people who were executed or purged under accusations that included “fascist” or similar anti-Soviet labels:
Marshal Mikhail Tukhachevsky (1893–1937)
A top Red Army commander, accused of plotting a military coup and collaborating with “German fascists.”
He and several other high-ranking officers were executed during the Great Purge.
His “crime” was almost entirely fabricated; it was politically motivated.
Nikolai Bukharin (1888–1938)
A prominent Bolshevik and former ally of Stalin, accused of plotting against the state and collaborating with fascist elements.
Despite his loyalty for much of the revolution, he was tried in a show trial and executed.
Lev Kamenev and Grigory Zinoviev (1883–1936 / 1883–1936)
Former Bolshevik leaders who fell out of favor.
Labeled as “enemies of the people” and “fascist conspirators” plotting against the Soviet Union.
Both were executed after coerced confessions.
Red Army Officers and Intellectuals
Hundreds of mid-level military officers were accused of conspiring with fascists.
Many academics, engineers, and foreign-born experts were accused of being “fascist spies” and either executed or sent to labor camps.
Ordinary Citizens
Peasants labeled as kulaks, workers who criticized local officials, or even neighbors who reported grudges could be branded “fascists.”
Many were sent to Gulags or executed with minimal evidence.
The pattern was clear: “fascist” didn’t have to reflect actual political beliefs — it was a weaponized label to eliminate anyone Stalin or local officials considered inconvenient, suspicious, or threatenin
Comment by Different Steve on March 29, 2026 at 10:14 am
When it comes to current governments, there aren’t any that scholars universally classify as classical fascist regimes in the strict historical sense (like Mussolini’s Italy or Nazi Germany). Fascism as an organized political system peaked in the 20th century and largely ended after World War II.
That said, some modern governments exhibit fascist-like tendencies, but most are better described as authoritarian, illiberal, or ultranationalist rather than “fascist” in the full ideological sense. Examples often cited include:
North Korea – Highly authoritarian with a cult of personality and strict social control. Some elements resemble fascist militarism, but its ideology is rooted in Juche and communism, not ultranationalist fascism.
Russia (under Vladimir Putin) – Analysts note ultranationalism, suppression of opposition, propaganda, and militaristic rhetoric. While authoritarian and nationalist, it is not generally classified as classical fascism by most historians.
Turkey (under Recep Tayyip Erdoğan) – Increasing authoritarianism, nationalist rhetoric, and suppression of dissent. Some scholars use terms like “neo-fascist” for elements of the government, but it doesn’t fully meet the historical definition.
Some far-right movements in Europe and elsewhere – Parties in Hungary, Poland, Italy, or Brazil sometimes exhibit ultranationalism, xenophobia, and authoritarian tendencies, but they operate within democratic frameworks, so labeling the state fascist is inaccurate.
Summary: Modern governments may show fascist-like traits — nationalism, authoritarian control, suppression of dissent — but no current state is universally agreed upon as a “true fascist government” like 1930s Italy or Nazi Germany.
Comment by Wilson R. on March 30, 2026 at 10:01 am
One area where American exceptionalism is real is the commitment to free speech. Laws in most other countries are less permissive. We may not agree with their restrictions, but we at least need to respect their laws.
Comment by Skipper on April 1, 2026 at 1:29 pm
Speaking of Free Speech, the Supreme Court struck down Colorado’s law banning free speech for therapists helping sexually confused people.