Hate speech in Montenegro most often emerges in reactions to political topics, crises, and discrimination, and therefore requires a systemic response. The fight against hate speech is not the responsibility of individuals, institutions, or the media alone, but of society as a whole, it was emphasized at the panel discussion Multiculturalism in the Age of the Internet – Protection Mechanisms and the Suppression of Online Hate Speech, held as part of the roundtable The Digital Face of a Multicultural Society, organized by the Centre for Civic Education (CCE).
Miljana Rakočević, Teaching Associate at the Faculty of Legal Sciences of the University of Donja Gorica (UDG), assessed that the legislative framework in Montenegro regulates hate speech fairly well, but that the digital space facilitates its spread. “Responsibility lies first with the person who writes, then with the media, and third with the state and society as a whole. When competent authorities fail to respond, victims often remain without support and decide not to report discrimination,” said Rakočević. She emphasized that the lack of an adequate response by competent institutions results in the absence of support for victims of discrimination, which further leads them to refrain from reacting. “Hate speech does not need a reason, but it does need a trigger. It is reactive, as can be seen in responses to political topics, crises, cases of violence, and issues of gender or sexual orientation. It manifests where wide reach meets low accountability. That is why it must be suppressed systematically,” Rakočević stated, adding that media counter-reactions should never respond to inflammatory rhetoric, but should always involve reporting it. She particularly highlighted the problem of unregistered media and inconsistent sanctioning of problematic content.
“Multiculturalism in Montenegro is not a value that we truly live and practice. It is not essentially present as a social practice, but rather represents a formal narrative of institutions on the path toward the European Union,”said Jelena Šušanj, Professor at the Faculty for Montenegrin Language and Literature (FCJK). Šušanj noted that, despite the existing legal framework, individuals who fight for their rights are often silenced. “The media shape the visual identity of news. When content enters the public space and includes offensive comments and hate speech, the problem remains and spreads,” she added. She stressed that sharing problematic content on social media, even with the intention of condemning it, increases its visibility. “That is why problems should be retold rather than sharing the original post, because otherwise we only contribute to its spread,” Šušanj explained. According to her, limiting hate speech also requires changes in education and social culture. She pointed to the dominant political climate in which the right wing often uses the divisions of ‘us’ and ‘them’ in its discourse, further marginalizing differences and reinforcing hate speech. “It is necessary to develop awareness of these strategies and strengthen individual reactions as a way to suppress negative patterns in the public space,” Šušanj concluded.
Emir Pilav, civic activist, believes that the number of hate speech cases that remain unsanctioned is increasing, despite a relatively well-regulated legal framework. “Everything depends on whom the hate speech is directed against. When politicians or public figures are targeted, perpetrators are quickly identified, while in the case of activists, journalists, and ordinary citizens, reactions often fail to occur,” Pilav said. He warned that the normalization and impunity of hate speech originating from the top of society influences the electorate, and that digital comments are often transferred into real life. “Those who should protect victims – the police, prosecution, and judiciary – are not doing their job. Hate speech is most strongly expressed where there is religious and national intolerance, as well as poverty,” Pilav added. In his view, the problem also lies in journalists’ failure to assume responsibility and in the lack of education. “It is necessary to begin primary socialization and education of children at the earliest age about behavior in the online space, to develop media and information literacy, and to provide support to victims of violence, especially in cases of hate speech,” Pilav concluded.
Almedina Dodić, civic activist from the NGO Eduko Plus, also believes that hate speech in Montenegro has become normalized, particularly on online portals, where offensive comments frequently target women, including journalists and politicians, as well as LGBT persons and the Roma community. “Public dialogue on these issues is important so that the problem is recognized and addressed, rather than swept under the rug. Additionally, reporting hate speech is often discouraging because the police and competent authorities do not take adequate measures. From experience, when I reported a profile that was sharing photos of me and other activists, I received no response and no action was taken,” Dodić emphasized. According to her, the lack of clear sanctions makes it difficult to distinguish between hate speech and freedom of expression. Recent cases, such as comments targeting Turkish citizens or graffiti on the Embassy of Bosnia and Herzegovina, have shown the thin line between verbal attacks and actual violence. “Different groups do not know each other well enough and do not cooperate. It is absurd to speak of multiculturalism while maintaining such distance at the same time. Genuine interculturalism in Montenegro essentially does not exist,” Dodić stated.
The event gathered nearly 50 representatives of institutions, civil society, academia, and the media, and was organized as part of the project Online Together – Against Hate for Multiculturalism, financially supported by the Ministry of Human and Minority Rights.
Maja Marinović, Programme Associate