Vienna Court Acquits Former Imam of Incitement Charges Over Social Media Posts

A former imam in Vienna faced a criminal trial on Wednesday for posting statements on social media that were alleged to incite hatred against Jewish people in Israel following the October 2023 terrorist attack by Hamas. The court ultimately acquitted the 61-year-old of incitement charges, determining that his posts, while controversial, did not meet the legal threshold for criminal prosecution under Austrian law.

The case centered on several lengthy Arabic-language posts the defendant published on his Facebook profile in January 2024, during his tenure as imam at the Assalam Mosque in Vienna. The posts included phrases interpreted as wishing harm upon Zionists and their supporters, and invoked religious appeals for strength among fighters in Gaza. Some of the phrases cited in court included calls for divine punishment against 'criminal Zionists' and for the strengthening of fighters in Gaza, accompanied by statements about instilling fear in the hearts of 'Jews, the occupiers.'

After these social media posts surfaced, the defendant resigned from his position as imam. Prosecutors argued that the content constituted incitement against Jews as a group, pointing to the broad reach of the posts among his over 3,500 Facebook followers. The prosecution emphasized that the language used extended beyond criticism of Israeli state actions and amounted to sweeping calls for violence against an entire group.

The defense contended that the posts were intended to express opposition to the actions of the Israeli government and military, rather than inciting hatred against Jews in general. The former imam claimed he had not fully read the content he was sharing, stating that he had received religious texts and commentaries from a friend via messaging app and posted them without careful review. He further clarified in court that his political stance supports a two-state solution and that he opposes the methods of Hamas.

In delivering the verdict, the presiding judge distinguished between permissible political expression and unlawful incitement. The court found that the statements, while provocative and in poor taste, were directed specifically at the Israeli government and military personnel involved in the Gaza conflict, rather than at Jews as a whole. The judge acknowledged that such statements, though deeply contentious, fell within the scope of Austria's laws on freedom of expression and did not cross the legal threshold for criminal incitement.

The judgment concluded that wishing harm upon specific individuals perceived as combatants or government representatives, within the context of ongoing armed conflict, is protected by freedom of speech under Austrian law. The judge also noted that the defense's claim of not having read the posts in their entirety was plausible, and that any potential media law implications would be separate from criminal liability.

The outcome of the trial was unexpected for the defense, which had initially advocated for diversionary proceedings rather than outright acquittal, emphasizing the defendant's lack of prior offenses and apparent remorse for the incident. Nevertheless, the prosecution maintained that the posts represented a generalized call to violence and indicated intent to appeal the verdict, which remains non-final pending further legal review.

The case has drawn attention to the complex legal and ethical distinctions between political expression, religious commentary, and hate speech in Austria, particularly in the context of the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The acquittal underscores the challenges faced by courts when balancing the right to free expression with the need to prevent incitement and hate crimes in a highly polarized environment.