This Master thesis is a textual analysis of Supreme Court rulings relating to §135a hate speech, 349a discrimination and §140 encouraging others to commit crimes. I used an idea analysis as a textual analysis method and Hermeneutics for the theoretical framework for the interpretation. The focus was on how the Supreme Court understands right wing extremism. The main argument for the research has been to establish a better understanding of how right wing extremist ideology is understood in the Supreme Court. I chose these specific laws due to two different reasons. The topic of, hate speech, discrimination and encouraging others to commit crimes are all easily connected to right wing extremism. The second reason is that I needed to limit the quantity of data so I chose crimes committed through words. This research has relied on clear definitions of the relevant concepts. Chapter 3, conceptual issues confront the issues related to terminology by building on previous academic literature. This clarified the relevant terms and provided a clear guideline of the meaning and understanding connected to these terms when used in this research. Chapter 4, analysis and findings in numbers, provides a overview of all the data found, categorizes the information and provides insight into the selection of rulings chosen for in depth analysis. Chapter 5, analysis and findings in depth, presents the in depth analysis of the Supreme Court rulings in a chronological order. Chapter 6, discussion, presents the main findings from the research and explains the issues that arose in the research. The main issue with the research has been the lack of relevant data found connected to Supreme Court rulings related to §140. Majority of these Supreme Court rulings were connected to crimes where the accused had encouraged others to quit the military. This finding cohered with previous research by Sunde (2013), who questioned if this law could be used to sentence people for encouraging others to commit crimes using online platforms. This research present an overview of the changes made in legal interpretation and practice relating to hate speech and discrimination. These changes are coherent with the changes that have happened in society, for example the inclusion of hate speech and discrimination aimed at people with a different sexual orientation. When the laws limiting hate speech were created, having a different sexual orientation was illegal while now it is considered a minority group in need of protection. Another significant finding was the complex balance between hate speech and the constitutional right to freedom of speech. This balance is also between encouraging people to join public debate and not to exclude unconventional opinions from the public whilst still protecting minority groups from harmful attacks. The research shows that legally limiting the constitutional right to freedom of speech in cases of hate speech has become easier. There are now different criteria for sentencing under this law, which is seen in the most recent Supreme Court ruling on, hate speech RT- 2012 s.536 (Dørvakt dommen the Bouncer Sentence). Right wing extremists use the argument of the constitutional right to freedom of speech regularly to justify and excuse their actions, as seen in this research. This research also found that right wing extremist has changed their targets, including new groups to hate and discriminate. The Supreme Court are careful not to assert any opinions to any of the accused, and people are not connected to a right wing extremist ideology unless they claim it themselves.