The case of Päivi Räsänen has become one of Europe's most closely watched freedom of speech and religious liberty cases because it sits at the intersection of hate speech law, religious expression, and the limits of public debate.
The controversy began in 2019 when Räsänen, a medical doctor, long-serving member of the Finnish Parliament, and former Interior Minister, questioned on social media why the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland was officially supporting a Pride event. In doing so, she quoted a passage from the Bible concerning homosexuality. That post prompted a police investigation. Prosecutors then widened the case to include a 2004 church booklet she had written on Christian teaching about marriage and sexuality, together with comments made during a radio interview. Prosecutors alleged that these statements amounted to the Finnish offence of incitement against a minority group, commonly described as hate speech.
The litigation lasted for years. In 2022, the Helsinki District Court acquitted Räsänen on all charges, holding that it was not the role of the court to interpret biblical concepts or determine religious doctrine. The prosecution appealed, but the Court of Appeal also acquitted her. Rather than ending the matter, the Prosecutor General took the case to Finland's Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court delivered a split 3-2 decision in March 2026. It unanimously acquitted Räsänen over the 2019 Bible tweet, concluding that quoting Scripture in that context did not amount to criminal hate speech. However, by the narrowest possible majority, the Court convicted her over the twenty-year-old church booklet, finding that some of its descriptions of homosexuality went beyond protected religious expression and constituted the public dissemination of insulting material directed at a protected group. She was fined €1,800. The accompanying bishop, Juhana Pohjola, was likewise convicted in relation to publishing the booklet.
The decision has generated sharply opposing reactions.
Supporters of Räsänen, including ADF International, argue that the case represents a dangerous narrowing of freedom of speech and freedom of religion. They contend that expressing traditional Christian doctrine, even if many people find it offensive, should remain protected in a democratic society, provided it does not directly incite violence or discrimination. They also argue that criminal investigations lasting several years can themselves have a chilling effect on public debate, regardless of the eventual outcome.
Those defending the judgment argue that freedom of speech has always been subject to legal limits and that democracies may legitimately prohibit public statements that insult or vilify protected groups. The Supreme Court distinguished between quoting biblical texts and presenting medical or social assertions that it regarded as objectively false and derogatory. According to the majority, Räsänen's comments in the booklet were not protected simply because they appeared in a religious publication.
The case therefore raises several important questions extending well beyond Finland. Can traditional religious teaching become criminal if expressed in sufficiently offensive terms? Where is the boundary between expressing a moral belief and unlawfully insulting a protected group? Should courts determine whether particular religious statements remain within the protection of freedom of religion, or does that place judges in the position of evaluating theological expression?
The legal battle is not necessarily over. Räsänen has announced her intention to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, arguing that the conviction violates her rights to freedom of expression and freedom of religion under the European Convention on Human Rights. If the Strasbourg court hears the case, its eventual judgment could become an important precedent for how European democracies balance hate speech laws against religious and political expression.