‘The Real Danger is if we Let Fear Win’: Hungary’s Pride Ban and the Shrinking Space for Dissent   

Update: This article was written prior to the Pride march on 28 June. The event marked a historic moment, becoming the largest Budapest Pride march to date, with over 200,000 people in attendance. We’ll be following up with Hegyi soon to reflect on the aftermath and explore whether the legal strategies discussed may evolve in response.

This article was written by Media Defence in conversation with Szabolcs Hegyi, Lawyer and Public Participation Program Senior Expert at the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union (HCLU) 

As Hungary prepares for its annual Pride march on 28 June, the event will not just commemorate its protest roots – this year, simply showing up is once again an act of political and legal defiance.

On 18 March, the Hungarian parliament passed a law that banned the Budapest Pride march and similar LGBTQIA+ focused events across the country. The bill imposes fines of up to 200,000 forints (£420/$550) for anyone attending, while organisers of events that have been banned by authorities face up to a year in prison. It also allows for the use facial recognition technology (FRT) to identify attendees.

Such measures have a broad chilling effect, not only on participants, supporters, and organisers of the Pride march and related events, but also on journalists reporting from the ground.

By criminalising assemblies and surveilling and vilifying both participants and journalists reporting on them, the Hungarian government is fostering a hostile media environment – one where marginalised voices are systematically excluded, and public discourse is distorted in favour of state-approved narratives.

In a recent interview with Szabolcs Hegyi, a lawyer at HCLU, he described the move as a dramatic escalation in the government’s crackdown on civil liberties – with serious implications for press freedom, the right to protest, and Hungary’s obligations under European and international human rights law.

Change of Tactics

Although there have been numerous past attempts to ban Pride marches in Hungary, authorities previously invoked public safety grounds as a justification – a rationale that was quite consistently and decisively overturned by the courts.

While authorities continued to impose severe restrictions, often confining marches to remote, fenced-off areas, sustained legal and advocacy efforts gradually improved Pride’s visibility. Eventually, participants were able to march freely through central Budapest, with ‘security concerns’ no longer used as a blanket excuse to suppress expression.

“What we see now is entirely different” Hegyi notes. It is the first time in post-communist Hungary that authorities attempt to justify a restriction on a peaceful protest not by concerns for public safety, but “by the presumed content of the expression itself”.

“The new law and its enforcement aim to suppress the political significance and message of the march,” Hegyi adds. “That’s what makes this moment unprecedented in the Hungarian context.”

Laws to Silence, Not to Protect

The Pride ban follows years of government efforts to suppress LGBTQIA+ visibility through the so-called “Propaganda Law” (a specific section of the Act on Child Protection). Adopted in 2021, the law restricts access to LGBTQIA+ content in education, advertising, and media by prohibiting the “depiction or promotion” of homosexuality and diverse gender identities to minors.

Modelled on Russia’s infamous 2013 Propaganda Law, it has become a legal instrument of censorship – used to justify measures such as shrink-wrapping books with LGBTQIA+ content or banning their sale in shops located within 500 metres of a church or school. It also serves to deter journalistic reporting on LGBTQIA+ topics, reinforcing a climate of fear and self-censorship.

A report by Amnesty International on the impact of the Propaganda Law noted that in the space of just three years, it has had a pervasive chilling effect on journalism. The report notes how fear of penalties for covering LGBTQIA+ issues has increased – especially within independent media with little resources to fend off legal attacks. With its new amendments, the law now also provides a legal pretext to criminalise protests and expand biometric surveillance, particularly during demonstrations focused on LGBTQIA+ issues.

The new anti-Pride law introduced sweeping changes through three rapid-fire legislative amendments to the Act on the Right of Assembly, the Act on Petty Offences and the Act on Facial Image Analysis. Under the new law, organising an LGBTQIA+ assembly in defiance of a police ban is now a criminal offence, while simply attending such an event is considered a petty offence if it is deemed to violate Hungary’s Child Protection Act – which includes the Propaganda Law. Additionally, authorities can now deploy FRT for any petty offence, not just serious crimes. These changes were adopted within just 24 hours, without public consultation or parliamentary debate.

Surveillance, Intimidation, and the Politics of Fear

Hegyi warns that this year’s Pride march, which is set to go ahead despite the ban, is likely to serve as a live mass testing ground for Hungary’s FRT. The system enables police to scan crowds, match faces against government databases, and issue fines or pursue legal action for petty offences retroactively. Simply walking in a public space could trigger automatic facial scans.

FRT was once limited to offences to cases where infractions were punishable by imprisonment. Now, however, its scope has broadened to include all infractions – such as attending a banned Pride march or committing low-level violations like jaywalking.

The use of facial recognition at LGBTQIA+ events raises serious concerns – not only for demonstrators, but also for journalists. The risk of being identified, targeted, or penalised may deter coverage of the march, and more widely, reporting on politically sensitive issues.

Legal protections for journalists are well established under international law. Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees the right to freedom of expression, including for members of the press. These protections apply even when journalists cover unauthorised protests, shielding them from arrest, harassment, or the seizure of equipment. In Hungary’s current climate, those protections are under threat.

However, Hegyi remains cautiously optimistic. He acknowledged that while “facial recognition is likely to be used,” its impact may be limited – mass identification is difficult in practice, and each match must be individually verified to hold up legally.

Beyond Surveillance: Are Physical Threats to Journalists and Attendees Likely?

While surveillance and the threat of fines create a chilling effect for those planning to attend or report on the march, Hegyi believes a forceful police crackdown – like the one seen during the 2006 protests – is unlikely. The political cost, he argues, would be too high.

The ruling FIDESZ party, he says, is acutely aware of the optics. “They are very concerned with how violent, physically conducted crowd-control actions are perceived,” he notes. “Much of their legitimacy depends on being seen as the party that maintains public order – not one that attacks Hungarian citizens.” A public beating of peaceful protesters, or attacks on journalists captured on video and broadcast to millions, could badly damage that narrative.

Hegyi notes, however, that the situation is further complicated by a third actor. While LGBTQIA+ events were banned, far-right hate groups officially notified police of plans to hold counter-assemblies at traditional Pride venues and along the march’s announced route. Unlike Pride, these events have not been prohibited by authorities.

These tactics are calibrated to suppress turnout and silence dissent – both from protesters and the press. Through surveillance, fines, and legal uncertainty, the government seeks not just to control the streets but to deter coverage and shield its actions from scrutiny.

Litigation in the Face of Repression

While petty offence fines can be appealed, we asked Hegyi about the likelihood of success in domestic courts and what legal tools remain for challenging the broader restrictions. In a context where judicial independence is steadily eroding, can Hungary’s courts still offer meaningful protection of fundamental rights?

“It’s complicated,” Hegyi says. Some judges in Hungary still apply the law independently, and HCLU continues to secure victories in lower courts, particularly in individual cases. But the judiciary has been structurally reshaped. Political control now extends to judicial appointments, court leadership, and case assignments, seriously undermining judicial independence.

Despite these challenges, Hegyi explains that HCLU has remained committed to pursuing legal resistance. They have continued to engage with the courts strategically – filing legal challenges, contesting bans, and building a body of evidence for future international litigation.

Together with Amnesty International Hungary, Háttér Society, and the Hungarian Helsinki Committee, HCLU have been testing the application of the new Pride-ban law for several weeks now. They have been submitting formal notifications for planned assemblies and systematically challenging the police bans before domestic courts.

“This is essential groundwork” Hegyi emphasises “it allows us to understand how the authorities and courts interpret the vague and ambiguous legal provisions.” Without this, we would not be able to effectively contest the legislation at the international level.

Building on these experiences, HCLU and its partners submitted an urgent request to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) earlier this week, seeking an interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court to temporarily suspend the enforcement of Hungary’s new law. The aim was to safeguard the rights to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression, and to prevent harm before a final ruling could be issued. However, the Court declined to grant the request.

HCLU also plans to systematically challenge petty offence proceedings against Pride participants and independent reporters. They will argue that penalising peaceful presence violates the rights to freedom of expression and assembly under the ECHR. These cases aim not only to defend individuals, but also to build a legal record questioning the law’s compatibility with Hungary’s international human rights obligations.

HCLU, in partnership with Amnesty International Hungary, the Hungarian Helsinki Committee, and Utcajogász (Streetlawyer Association), has published legal guidance for anyone attending or reporting on the march. They are also providing appeal templates for petty offence charges and legal support to journalists facing legal threats.

A Law at Odds with Hungary’s Legal Commitments

The new legislation not only undermines democratic norms but also appears to breach Hungary’s constitutional guarantees and its international and regional legal obligations.

Domestically, it raises serious concerns under Article VIII of the Fundamental Law, which protects the right to peaceful assembly, and Article IX, which safeguards freedom of expression.

Internationally, it is incompatible with Articles 10 and 11 of the ECHR, which protect freedom of expression, assembly, and association.

Homosexual propaganda bans have previously been found unlawful by the ECtHR. In Bayev and others v. Russia the Court held that such laws were “incompatible with the notions of equality, pluralism and tolerance inherent in a democratic society”.

Additionally, the use of FRT creates a chilling effect that EU law – particularly the AI Act – explicitly seeks to prevent. Although Hungary’s system uses still images from recordings like CCTV footage, it allows automatic comparisons with a government database, enabling near real-time identification – especially during protests. Police have direct access to this system, making rapid identification possible.

This is critical, since real-time biometric surveillance is already prohibited by the AI Act, while retrospective facial recognition is only deemed “high-risk” and will be regulated from 2026 onwards. Under the Act, even systems with slight delays are considered “real-time” if they are happening quickly enough to influence behaviour at public events. According to HCLU, Hungary’s system meets the EU’s definition of “real-time” biometric surveillance.

Behind the Pride Ban: A Systemic Assault on Civil and Press Freedoms

The Pride ban is a symbol of something deeper: it reflects broader attacks on civil society, public interest journalism, and marginalised communities.

In 2018, the formation of the Central European Press and Media Foundation (KESMA) further entrenched state control over the media, placing over 470 pro-government outlets under a single umbrella aligned with FIDESZ’s political objectives.

Press freedom has been further constrained by surveillance and data misuse, as evidenced by the 2021 Pegasus spyware scandal. Investigations revealed that Hungarian authorities had deployed military-grade spyware against journalists, lawyers, and civil society actors.

Although international outrage followed, Hungary’s National Authority for Data Protection and Freedom of Information (NAIH) found no wrongdoing, citing broad legal provisions that permit secret surveillance under the guise of national security.

More recently, a law, entitled “on transparency in the public sphere”, which closely mirrors Russia’s notorious foreign agent legislation, was tabled by FIDESZ on 21 May 2024. Introduced just weeks after Prime Minister Orbán’s call for a “spring cleaning” to purge Hungary of a so-called “shadow army” of critical journalists and NGOs, the draft law poses a serious threat to civil society. It would empower the government to label organisations receiving foreign funding, subject them to public listing, and impose punitive sanctions. These could include being cut off from all funding – foreign and domestic – unless explicitly authorised by the state.

Although the parliamentary debate and vote on the bill – originally scheduled for mid-June – has now been postponed, it reflects the incumbent government’s ongoing efforts to suppress independent media and undermine democratic values.

Despite shrinking civic space, the threat of surveillance, and the risk of fines, thousands are expected to take to the streets in today’s march. Hegyi notes that he wouldn’t be surprised if this turns out to be the largest Budapest Pride ever.

“The ban has come to symbolise more than just a single protest” he tells us “It has exposed that laws are increasingly being designed and enforced not to protect the public, but to serve those in power.” It’s crucial that we protect and defend our fundamental rights. As he notes, “the real danger is if we let fear win”.

Media Defence’s Support

Media Defence’s Emergency Defence Programme provides legal assistance to journalists facing retaliation for their reporting, including coverage of legal fees and access to experienced legal counsel. If you face legal retaliation for your coverage of the protest, you can apply for help here.

Media Defence also works globally through strategic litigation to reinforce legal protections for the media and secure accountability where journalists’ rights are violated. Media Defence is proud to work in partnership with the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union (HCLU) as a funded partner, supporting shared efforts to protect press freedom.

If you are a journalist facing legal risks while covering Pride in Budapest, please contact HCLU or Media Defence for support. Media Defence’s emergency defence programme can provide legal representation and assistance to journalists targeted for their work.

Media Defence’s Support

Media Defence’s Emergency Defence Programme provides legal assistance to journalists facing retaliation for their reporting, including coverage of legal fees and access to experienced legal counsel. If you face legal retaliation for your coverage of the protest, you can apply for help here.

Media Defence also works globally through strategic litigation to reinforce legal protections for the media and secure accountability where journalists’ rights are violated. Media Defence is proud to work in partnership with the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union (HCLU) as a funded partner, supporting shared efforts to protect press freedom.

If you are a journalist facing legal risks while covering Pride in Budapest, please contact HCLU or Media Defence for support. Media Defence’s emergency defence programme can provide legal representation and assistance to journalists targeted for their work.