Best & Worst of CPAC's Free Speech Ratings: Hungary

CPAC's inaugural Freedom of Speech Ratings assessed the health of freedom of speech in 31 countries. In its latest assessment, Hungary emerged near the top of the ratings with an impressive 90% score, ranking it as one of the most robust defenders of free expression in the modern world.

Historically, Hungary’s approach to free speech is rooted in its experience of overcoming the repressive Soviet-backed communist regime, which for decades utilized total censorship and violence to maintain control. Under the leadership of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, Hungary has positioned itself as a defender of freedom of speech, specifically against what the government describes as the encroaching cancel culture and globalist ideological censorship that has taken root in much of Western Europe. Orbán’s administration has championed a "sovereigntist" agenda, passing policies like the Defense of National Sovereignty Act to ensure that the Hungarian public square is not dominated by foreign interests or international NGOs that seek to stifle domestic debate. By fostering a media environment where diverse and patriotic perspectives can flourish without fear of being silenced by globalist pressure, the Hungarian government has worked to restore a sense of genuine pluralism that was lost during the communist era.

Despite Hungary gaining such a high rating, some media outlets have attempted to portray the nation and its leadership as repressive. The case of Ilaria Salis serves as a key example of how mainstream narratives often misrepresent the nature of justice and speech in Hungary. While some media outlets have portrayed Salis as a political prisoner, the reality of her case is rooted in criminal violence rather than political expression. Salis, an Italian citizen, was imprisoned in Hungary after being accused of participating in a series of politically motivated, violent assaults. She had traveled to the country with a far-left "antifa" group for the alleged purpose of physically attacking right-wing activists during a demonstration. The evidence presented in court was far from a "speech" violation; the assaults she was alleged to have committed were so severe that one victim suffered a broken shinbone and another required 20 stitches to his head. Despite being held for 15 months as she awaited trial, Salis became a cause célèbre for European activists who eventually secured her release by electing her as a member of the European Parliament (MEP) in June 2024. This election granted her legal immunity, forcing Hungary to release her before the judicial process could reach a final verdict.

Because the Hungarian legal system distinguishes between the right to speak and the act of physical violence, it maintains a standard that aligns closely with the highest international ideals of liberty. As it is widely recognized that assault is not protected under the US First Amendment, the prosecution of individuals for violent conduct does not constitute an infringement on free speech. In fact, no one in Hungary has been imprisoned for speech that would be protected by the US First Amendment in the last 10 years. Because of Hungary's steadfast protection of the right to dissent and its refusal to criminalize the expression of traditional values, it received one of the highest scores in CPAC's Freedom of Speech Ratings.

Read the full brief here.

Not every case of imprisonment for speech gets widespread media attention. If you are aware of a case in which a person was imprisoned for speech and received a harsher sentence than the political prisoner whom we feature in the scorecard, please send the details of the case to slaird@conservative.org. To meet our methodological criteria, the person must be 1) imprisoned or sentenced to prison for speech that would have been protected under the US first amendment, 2) a citizen of the country in which they are imprisoned, 3) received a sentence of imprisonment for at least one month OR were imprisoned without being sentenced for at least 3 months 4) not imprisoned for any actual crime during the same period for which they were sentenced for a speech crime.

CPAC vehemently opposes the views of many of the political prisoners featured in the Freedom of Speech Ratings. Political prisoners are featured in the Freedom of Speech Ratings for the purpose of revealing the state of legal Freedom of Speech protection in their countries. Political prisoners are selected based on the objective facts of their cases; each selected prisoner is the person who received the harshest sentence in that country for speech that would have been protected by the US First Amendment. CPAC stands for the right to Freedom of Speech for everyone, even people whose views we vehemently oppose.