Fact Check: Romanian Protests Target Controversial Communications Law

Romanians Rally Against Controversial Anti-Extremism Law Amid Free Speech Concerns

Thousands of protesters flooded central Bucharest last week, rallying against legislation they claim threatens Romania’s freedom of speech. Demonstrators, numbering just over 10,000, gathered to oppose what they’ve dubbed the “Vexler Law,” which they fear could criminalize opinions expressed online.

The demonstration, organized by far-right MEP Claudiu Târziu, founder of the newly established Conservative Action Party, called for the immediate repeal of the legislation, citing concerns about fundamental civil liberties. Addressing the crowd, Târziu described the law as “the most serious attack on the Romanian people in the past 35 years” and warned it would “erase from the collective memory the heroes, geniuses and saints of the Romanian nation.”

However, a closer examination of the legislation reveals a more nuanced reality. The law, proposed by MP Silviu Vexler, who also serves as president of the Federation of Jewish Communities in Romania, primarily targets extremist ideologies by prohibiting the public glorification of fascist figures and establishing criminal penalties for promoting antisemitism, racism, or xenophobia in both physical and digital spaces.

The legislation has followed a complex path through Romania’s political system. Initially adopted in June 2025, it was returned to parliament by President Nicușor Dan, who expressed concerns about the imprecise definitions of what constitutes fascist, legionary, racist, or xenophobic material. Despite these objections, parliament reaffirmed the bill, a decision later upheld by Romania’s Constitutional Court. The law was ultimately re-adopted in December, reigniting public debate over free speech boundaries in the country.

At the heart of protesters’ concerns is the potential impact on Romania’s cultural heritage and national identity. Demonstrators frequently cite Mihai Eminescu, Romania’s revered national poet, as an example of a historical figure whose works could potentially fall under scrutiny due to xenophobic and antisemitic elements in some of his journalism and poetry.

Experts, however, dispute this interpretation. Adina Marincea, a researcher at the Elie Wiesel National Institute for the Study of the Holocaust in Romania, told Euronews’ fact-checking team that the legislation “criminalises only specific extremist content, such as fascist, legionary, racist and xenophobic material” and emphasized that “there is absolutely nothing in the law that would lead to the national poet being banned.”

The law makes important distinctions between historical context and contemporary promotion of extremist ideologies. It requires that historical figures and their works be examined within their proper historical framework but does not prohibit academic discussion, artistic interpretation, or educational use of cultural material. Furthermore, it differentiates between artistic output and political activity, focusing its restrictions on public honors for war criminals or leaders of fascist organizations rather than banning their literary or artistic contributions outright.

This distinction has significant implications for Romania’s cultural landscape. For example, despite concerns raised by protesters, Eminescu’s writings remain firmly established in Romania’s national school curriculum.

Legal analysts characterize the legislation as an update to existing hate-speech regulations, addressing previously unregulated areas of concern. They note that since its implementation, there have been no documented cases of the law being used to suppress legitimate free speech—either under its original form or the updated version.

The protests highlight genuine public anxiety about government overreach into free expression, a sensitive issue in a country still wrestling with the legacy of communist-era censorship. However, legal experts maintain that claims about the law imposing broad restrictions on speech are not substantiated by the actual text of the legislation.

As Romania continues to navigate the balance between protecting vulnerable groups from hate speech and preserving freedom of expression, this controversy underscores the ongoing challenges of legislating in the digital age, where misinformation about laws can sometimes spread more rapidly than accurate information about their actual content and intent.