Article 10 - freedom of expression

10.1

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, this shall include freedom to hold opinions and receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers

10.2

The exercise of these freedoms may be subject to restrictions as prescribed by law, necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, the protection of health or morals of the protection of the reputation or rights of others for preventing the disclosure of information received in confident or maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary

Health and morals

Gilberg v Sweden - freedom applies to artistic expression and extends to expressions that are intended to offend, shock and disturb, but it may be restricted where the expression causes or is likely to cause significant offence
Muller v Switzerland - three sexually explicit paintings at a show, artists were fined and painting removed, no breach
Otto Preminger Institut v Austria - banning of an offensive film about religion was not an offence
Handyside v UK - banning obscene publications fell to the margin of appreciation, no breach
Obscene Publications Act - obscene defined as tending to deprave and corrupt unless in the interests of public concern (science, literature etc) CJIA crates offence of extreme pornographic images
R v Gibson - foetus earrings, charged under outraging public decency, no breach

Rights or Reputation of Others

Article 8 cases.
Von Hannover No2 set out five criteria for domestic courts to consider when balancing rights
- general interest
- notoriety of person
- prior conduct (co-operating with press previously?)
- way the material is published (context, representation of person)
- consent
Steven and Morris v UK (McLibel case) - unfair trial as the level of damages were so great they breached article 10, would have a chilling effect on ability to protest

Prevention of disorder or crime

Garaudy v France - applicant published a book denying the holocaust, ECtHR held it was one of the most severe forms of racial defamation, no violation of article 10 as it was restricted by 10.2
Public Order Act, Racial and Religious Hatred Act, Anti-terrorism Crime and Security ACt
Surek v Turkey

National security, territorial integrity or public safety

Terrorism Act, Investigatory Powers Act, Official Secrets Act
Miranda v Home Office - journalist was stopped and detained at Heathrow, and classified material was taken from him. He was deprived of his right to impart information under Article 10

Preventing the disclosure of info received in public

Did not apply in Campbell as it was a misuse of info rather than breach of trust
Goodwin v UK - orders requiring journalists to reveal their sources are an unjustified interference with Article 10
Observer and Guardian v UK - newspapers wished to publish extracts from a book by a former british security servicethey claimed info waas already available, EtCHR disagreed as idk cba