The Päivi Räsänen case is likely to become a landmark in Finnish and European hate-speech jurisprudence. This case also serves as a remarkable example of the legal politics surrounding worldwide populist movements, illustrating not only a clash between hate speech and religious speech but also highlighting how conservative legal networks strategically reframe European equality-focused speech regulations as “censorship.” This case could help us to reconsider what remains in the third wave of legal globalization and what is on the edge of the end, as well as what perspectives have been conflicting with each other. At stake, therefore, is not only the doctrinal boundary between freedom of expression, religious liberty, and protection from discriminatory speech, but also a broader struggle over the vocabulary of rights, constitutionalism, and legal globalization itself.