The conviction of the applicant for publishing in a weekly magazine an article which insulted the government with the penalty of disqualification from public office, violated the applicants freedom of expression within the meaning of Article 10. ‘ The court recalls that the freedom of expression, enshrined in paragraph 1 of Article 10 (Art. 10-1), constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and one of the basic conditions for its progress. Subject to paragraph 2 of Article 10 (Art. 10-2), it is applicable not only to ‘information’ or ‘ideas’ that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb. Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broad-mindedness without which there is ‘no democratic society’ . . While freedom of expression is important for everybody, it is especially so for an elected representative of the people. He represents his electorate, draws attention to the pre-occupations and defends their interests. Accordingly, interference with the freedom of expression of an opposition member of Parliament, like the applicant, called for the closest scrutiny on the part of the court.’
The Court described the role of the press, and its duties: ‘. . . the pre-eminent role of the press in a state governed by the rule of law must not be forgotten. Although it must not overstep various bounds set, inter alia, for the prevention of disorder and the protection of the reputation of others, it is nevertheless incumbent on it to impart information and ideas on political questions and on other matters of public interest.’ and ‘Freedom of the press affords the public one of the best means of discovering and forming an opinion of the ideas and attitudes of their political leaders. In particular, it gives politicians the opportunity to reflect and comment on the preoccupations of public opinion; it thus enables everyone to participate in the free political debate which is at the very core of the concept of a democratic society.’
11798/85, (1992) 14 EHRR 445, [1992] ECHR 48
Worldlii, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 10
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd and others HL 28-Oct-1999
Fair Coment on Political Activities
The defendant newspaper had published articles wrongly accusing the claimant, the former Prime Minister of Ireland of duplicity. The paper now appealed, saying that it should have had available to it a defence of qualified privilege because of the . .
Cited – Mohamed, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 4) Admn 4-Feb-2009
In an earlier judgment, redactions had been made relating to reports by the US government of its treatment of the claimant when held by them at Guantanamo bay. The claimant said he had been tortured and sought the documents to support his defence of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 August 2021; Ref: scu.165207
