[5] Although by attempting to have a uniform application through the request of the 'triple test' and narrow interpretation of the article's content in individual national circumstances it has led some states through a belief the European court is being too stringent to neglect their duties and responsibilities of protection as required by the convention.
"[9] Similarly, Docherty[10] suggests that institutionally, the US First Amendment through the nature of the American judicial system and the difficulty of constitutional reform affords greater protection as well as fewer restrictions on the freedom of speech; whereas through the margin of appreciation and the reliance upon members' constitutions being sufficiently robust, freedom of expression within the ECtHR does not directly afford the same level of protection of expression to citizens.
Hate speech is highly contextual and subjective in terms of content and victim, which makes it very difficult to legislate against on a national and especially on a multinational level.
[non-primary source needed] However, despite the expectancy of citizens to exercise tolerance, it may be difficult to achieve not only as stated before due to the subjective nature of offence being taken but also the complexity of the ECHR failing to define hate speech within either Article 10 or any other convention, ruling or European wide statute to date.
[15] But any limitations on freedom of expression would damage a crucial right of those who live within a democracy, as some[weasel words] deem it to be counter what is laid out in Article 10(2) as not being necessary in a democratic society.
Later court decisions held that due to "the technical progress in the last decades, the justification of these restrictions cannot be made by reference to the number of available frequencies and channels."
[16] The court also held that devices for receiving broadcasting information, such as satellite dishes, do not fall under the restriction provided for in the last sentence of the first paragraph.