Are profane slogans at protests grounds for punishment – the ECHR's case

Can protesters use profanity on banners and slogans during demonstrations?

The question resurfaced after recent protests against the first-reading approval of a new Civil Code bill. Participants reported that police officers objected to profane language on their posters, and in some cities even inspected cardboard signs before the protests had begun.

Anna Strashok, spokesperson for Kyiv's police, stated that displaying banners containing profanity in a public place could constitute an administrative offense – namely, petty hooliganism.

However, the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) suggests the issue is far from straightforward.

Read more about the most notable rulings and the principles the Court applies when examining such cases in the article by Volodymyr Yavorskyi and Khrystyna Buchkovska of the Center for Civil Liberties: European standards for profanity at protests: how the ECHR responds when states punish swearing.

The ECHR's most important and detailed interpretation of the use of profanity and offensive slogans during peaceful assemblies comes from the ruling in Peradze and Others v. Georgia (2022).

In July 2015, hundreds of people gathered in central Tbilisi to protest the large-scale Panorama Tbilisi construction project.

During the demonstration, one protester carried a placard bearing a crude slogan in Georgian. In English, it would roughly translate as: "Panorama? No, f* that!"** Other demonstrators quickly produced similar signs on the spot in solidarity.

A court in Tbilisi later found them guilty of petty hooliganism and fined each of them approximately €40.

The protesters appealed to the ECHR and won. The Court found that Georgia had violated the European Convention on Human Rights.

The judges held that even if the form of expression was coarse, the state cannot automatically punish people merely for using a harsh word on a protest sign. The broader context matters. Each case must be examined through a series of contextual considerations.

When a state punishes someone for words or a banner displayed during a peaceful assembly, the ECHR does not focus solely on the presence of profanity. Instead, it seeks answers to several key questions.

The Georgian protesters prevailed because the Court concluded that the demonstration concerned a matter of public interest, while the offensive language served as an emotional and stylistic means of expressing outrage.

The ECHR has issued several other rulings concerning "unconventional" or profane protests.

At the same time, it is important to understand that the Court draws a clear distinction between criticism and mere insult. This distinction is not limited to public demonstrations.

So what does this mean for profane slogans directed at Ukraine's Civil Code?

If a protest concerns an issue of public importance, the offensive language forms part of political or emotional expression, and there is no genuine disturbance of public order, then punishing participants solely because a banner contains profanity may run contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights.

That does not mean, however, that police have no right to respond.

For example, simply warning protesters about offensive language does not in itself amount to a human rights violation. But attempts to inspect banners before a demonstration begins, as reported by participants in the Civil Code protests, are far closer to censorship than to maintaining public order. The same applies to banning specific slogans or penalising activists solely because of the sharp or provocative form of their expression.