A Problem Everyone Sees, but the Law Doesn’t Name
Hate speech shapes public debate in Poland with increasing intensity, yet the legal system approaches it through a surprisingly narrow lens. Although society uses the term daily, Polish legislation contains no legal definition of “hate speech”. Instead, it relies on a set of traditional criminal provisions-Articles 119, 256, and 257 of the Criminal Code-that capture fragments of the phenomenon but never its full scope.
Offline or Online? The Law Doesn’t Care
Despite the transformative power of the internet, the law makes no distinction between hateful expression voiced on the street and the same expression posted on Facebook, YouTube, or TikTok. A comment whispered to a handful of people and one amplified to thousands through algorithms are treated identically. Legally speaking, the medium simply does not matter-an approach that struggles to reflect the scale and speed of digital communication.
Who Becomes the Target? A Predictable Pattern
Police data consistently show which groups bear the brunt of hate-motivated offences: LGBT+ individuals, the Roma minority, Black people, Jewish communities, Muslims, and-with rising frequency since 2022-Ukrainians. These social patterns remain stable despite cultural changes. What shifts is the form: from slurs in public spaces to online harassment, orchestrated disinformation, and viral narratives. Yet the legal categories that trigger protection have not evolved alongside these realities.
The Law Protects Some… but Not Others
Poland’s current legislation covers hatred based on nationality, ethnicity, race, religion, and worldview. But motivations such as sexual orientation, gender, disability, or age remain outside criminal protection. A 2025 attempt to broaden these categories passed through Parliament-only to be rejected by the Constitutional Tribunal for being too vague and disproportionate. As a result, society’s growing demand for broader protection clashes with a legal framework reluctant to expand.
Constitutional Limits: The Shadow of Censorship
The Polish Constitution strongly prohibits preventive censorship. Authorities cannot restrain speech before it appears; intervention may occur only afterward, and only through a carefully balanced proportionality test. Courts must determine whether any restriction is necessary, appropriate, and narrowly tailored. This legal philosophy, built to protect democratic freedom, also makes the state a slow and cautious actor in responding to digital harm.
A Rapidly Evolving Digital Battlefield
As social media platforms moderate content in real time and disinformation spreads within minutes, the law struggles to keep pace. New threats-especially AI-generated deepfakes-add another layer of complexity. Poland has already seen court cases involving manipulated synthetic media, including a high-profile dispute over deepfakes using a business leader’s likeness. Yet these conflicts are currently resolved using old tools such as image rights, personal data protection, or identity theft statutes, because no law specifically regulates deepfakes.
Tools That Work-Up to a Point
Poland has improved its enforcement infrastructure. The police and prosecution service operate specialized mechanisms for handling hate crimes; digital evidence is systematically logged; and national coordinators monitor cases across regions. But even with such structures, enforcement remains slow. By the time a hateful message or manipulated video completes its viral cycle, the legal response may still be in its early procedural stages.
A Debate Everyone Fears Having
The reluctance to reform hate-speech laws stems from a shared anxiety. Politicians fear accusations of censorship; judges fear overstepping constitutional boundaries; online platforms fear unpredictable liability; citizens fear losing their freedom to speak openly. Yet victims of hateful expression fear discrimination and violence. And democracy fears erosion from unchecked toxicity and coordinated campaigns designed to inflame division-sometimes orchestrated by foreign actors, as reflected in recent amendments addressing disinformation operations.
Why Clarity Matters Now More Than Ever
Hate speech is not simply an insult. In the digital age, it is a tool that can mobilize crowds, deepen social fractures, and distort public debate. Without modern, precise legislation capable of reflecting this reality, democratic institutions remain vulnerable. What Poland needs is not censorship, but clarity: a legal definition that matches contemporary threats, a balanced system that respects both freedom and safety, and mechanisms that respond at the speed of digital communication-not years after the damage is done.
Hate speech is evolving. The law must evolve with it.