The constitutional adjudication of non-verbal speech

Abstract

Can property be damaged without the owner’s consent? Everyone’s instinctive answer might be a definite no. Professional lawyers, however, are more careful, and answer this question by ‘it depends’. Indeed, the variety of situations that occur in reality may suggest caution: should we really judge a threatening graffiti in the same way as, for example, Banksy’s politically charged works? The question can be examined from several aspects. This paper does not deal with whether street art falls under the protection of artistic freedom. It deals exclusively with phenomena of public communication falling within the scope of freedom of expression, and by analysing the latest case law of the Hungarian Constitutional Court, it draws conclusions about the constitutionality of non-verbal speech. Individual cases can be placed in a broader context, and thus this paper concludes to the Constitutional Court’s approach on fundamental rights.