How the War Has Shifted Ukraine’s Approach to Hate Speech

A comparative analysis between Ukraine and the United States' approach to hate speech

---

Published March 21st, 2026

Written by Kathryn Rakocha

Democracies around the world approach the regulation of hate speech in different ways depending on their cultural history, national identity, and political context. Ukraine’s approach to regulating hate speech has changed in response to the pressures of governing during Russia’s full-scale invasion. Ukraine’s shift stands in contrast to the United States, where hate speech is broadly protected under the First Amendment.

 In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is both intended to spark violence and violence is likely to occur. Under the First Amendment, hate speech is not a legal category, meaning that hostile speech directed at specific groups can receive constitutional protection. As Justice Alito wrote, “speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity… or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express ‘the thought that we hate.’”

Before the war began, Ukraine’s hate speech laws were similar to those of other European countries that take a more restrictive approach to hateful speech than the United States. Many European countries consider hate speech a prohibited expression. In 2021, the European Commission adopted a Communication encouraging EU states to expand the list of crimes they can regulate to include hate speech and hate crimes, allowing laws that criminalize many forms of hateful expression, not just racist or xenophobic speech. Although this framework applies across the European Union, different countries also have their own specific rules and guidelines. Germany’s Basic Law criminalizes insults, and according to In Focus, “anyone who incites hatred or violence against certain ethnic, religious, or national groups can be sentenced to up to five years in prison.”

Ukraine’s approach has taken a different form due to the demands of being in an active war, focusing less on discriminatory speech and more on speech that threatens citizens’ safety. Before Russia’s invasion, under Article 161, Ukraine regulated hate speech through fines and prison sentences of up to three years, with harsher penalties of two to five years if the hate speech involved violence or threats. After Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, Ukrainian lawmakers amended the criminal code to penalize speech including insulting Ukrainian soldiers, glorifying Russia, and denying Russian aggression in order to protect national security. Under Article 436-2, violators can face up to eight years in prison if the offense is committed through mass media.

Since the invasion, martial law has also created tighter control over information, including blocking Russian propaganda sites and restricting media coverage of the war. A major part of this shift has been greater state control over speech in the media. According to RAND Europe, Ukraine has made significant changes to its digital governance system as part of this wartime strategy. The Ministry of Digital Transformation has described these changes as “appropriate to Ukraine’s specific needs in order to be maximally effective in keeping the country sovereign and free.”

Ukraine’s approach shows that the active war has led the government to tighten its speech laws. Ukraine’s legal changes focus on war-related content and guarding against speech that could weaken the country during an invasion. This shift shows how war can change the way governments regulate speech when national security is at risk.

---