In a recent commentary, Andre Hanimägi emphasizes Estonia's commitment as a member of the European Union to criminalize specific forms of hate speech, a legal obligation arising from a Framework Decision made in 2008. Despite this agreement, Estonia has not yet adopted the necessary laws to fulfill this requirement, with a deadline that passed in 2010. Hanimägi points out that the lack of action has led to the initiation of infringement proceedings against Estonia, which could result in fines rather than a substantive debate on the moral implications of hate speech laws.

Hanimägi is clear that the discourse surrounding the criminalization of hate speech has essentially concluded, with the EU's decision in 2008 shaping policy in member states. He argues that political gestures or rhetoric from leaders like Urmas Reinsalu cannot alter the reality of EU law; Estonia's failure to implement the necessary legislation is now a legal matter rather than a philosophical discussion. As a result, the focus should be shifted from debating the morality of hate speech to the actual legal obligations that Estonia must fulfill to avoid penalties.

In conclusion, the urgency of addressing hate speech laws has evolved from an abstract discussion to a pressing legal obligation for Estonia, where governmental action is essential to comply with EU directives. The article invites readers to consider the implications of these laws, not just as a matter of moral philosophy, but as a crucial aspect of Estonia's legal landscape and its relationship with the European Union.