本文透過分析歐洲人權法院判決，關注何謂仇恨言論及應否與如何限制等議題，同時從政治爭議、宗教衝突、種族爭論、國家認同、性別認同等五個面向論述之。 歐洲人權法院沒有明確指出仇恨言論之定義，同時歐洲人權法院在納粹、法西斯、攻擊尤太人、提倡極端宗教思考及排除特定宗教人士之言論等領域適用公約第17條。本文認為，其實歐洲人權法院不需要先劃定「禁區」，也不必要強調適用公約第17條排除權利保障，而可以透過公約第10條第2項及第11條第2項之審查，決定締約國限制表意自由及集會結社自由是否違反比例原則。

This article reviews issues including what constitutes hate speech and whether and how to regulate it through an analysis of the judg-ments of the European Court of Human Rights. The relevant cases are divided into five fields: political controversy, religious conflict, racial dispute, national identity and gender character. The Court does not explicitly define hate speech, but regards Na-zi, Fascist, anti-Jewish, extreme expression, exclusion of Muslims or members of a specific race, race-based threats, and appeals to violence as forms of hate speech. Some of these expressionsare excluded from protection because of Article 17 of the Convention. The Court also rules that a political party based on Sharia law can be dissolved; pre-ventive measure can be imposed due to an association with true threats; speech appealing to violence can be prohibited. This essay argues that the Court need not draw a “restricted zone,” nor emphasis the application of Article 17 of the Convention. It may, instead, focus on second paragraphs of Articles 10 and 11 to review whether the restrictions comply with the principle of propor-tionality. The essay also argues that the Court has to clarify why Sha-ria law does not stand with democratic principles. The Court should insist on its own relevant and sufficient pressing social need principle.