Administrativej Law Week 10: Freedom of Expression Flashcards

A collection of 20 practice flashcards based on lecture notes covering Article 10 of the ECHR, freedom of expression, relevant case law, and statutory restrictions.

According to the ruling in Handyside v. the United Kingdom, what does freedom of expression constitute in a democratic society?

It constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society, one of the basic conditions for its progress and for the development of every man.

What two specific rights are included in the right to freedom of expression under Article $10(1)$ of the ECHR?

The right to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.

What are the three criteria that must be met for a restriction on freedom of expression under Article $10(2)$ to be considered lawful?

The restriction must be prescribed by law, pursue a legitimate objective, and be necessary in a democratic society (proportionate).

According to Observer and Guardian v United Kingdom, to what type of ideas does the scope of freedom of expression extend?

It extends not only to information or ideas that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb.

Which case is cited as an example of Article $10$ protection involving paintings?

Mueller v Switzerland

Which case used Article $10$ to address expressive conduct regarding rules for clothing?

Stevens v United Kingdom

What was the House of Lords' finding in the case of Reynolds v Times Newspapers [$1999$]?

They found in the Times' favour, stating that freedom to disseminate and receive information on political matters is essential to the proper functioning of a system of parliamentary democracy.

Why did the ECtHR find a violation of Article $10$ in the case of Goodwin v THE UNITED KINGDOM [$1996$]?

Because while an injunction to prevent publication was considered necessary, the disclosure of the journalist's source was unnecessary and would produce a chilling effect in society.

In Nielsen v UNITED KINGDOM ($2010$), what was the legitimate aim cited for refusing to return a prisoner's graphic autobiography?

The legitimate aim was to protect health, morals, and the reputation or rights of others (distress to survivors and victim's families).

What were the two rights balanced in the case of Campbell v MGN [$2004$]?

The right to respect for private life (Article $8$) and freedom of expression (Article $10$).

In Lee v Ashers Baking Company Ltd [$2018$], why was the bakery entitled to refuse to provide the iced message 'support gay marriage'?

Because non-discrimination rights do not justify obliging someone to supply a message with which they profoundly disagree, regardless of the topic.

How does Section $1(1)$ of the Obscene Publications Act $1959$ define 'obscene'?

Matter whose effect is such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely to read, see, or hear it.

What is the 'public good' defence under Section $4$ of the Obscene Publications Act $1959$?

A person shall not be convicted if publication is justified as being in the interests of science, literature, art, or learning, or other objects of general concern.

How did the court in R v Penguin Books Ltd ($1961$) define the term 'to deprave'?

To make morally bad, to pervert, to debase or to corrupt morally.

What specific type of statement is criminalised under Section $1$ of the Terrorism Act $2006$?

A statement likely to be understood as a direct or indirect encouragement or inducement to the commission, preparation, or instigation of acts of terrorism, including anything that glorifies them.

In R v Terence Roy Brown [$2011$], what was the court's view on the 'chilling effect' of sentencing for selling material like the 'Anarchist Cookbook'?

Lord Judge CJ stated the Article $10$ argument was without merit and noted there may be something advantageous in a chilling effect that causes non-ideological booksellers not to sell material of benefit to terrorists.

What was the outcome regarding the Article $10$ argument in the appeal of R v Faraz ($2012$)?

The Article $10$ argument was unsuccessful; there was no exemption for publications carrying a real risk of encouraging terrorism merely because they expressed political or religious views.

How did Naomi Klein describe the 'Marketplace of Ideas' concept?

She described it as 'cacophony' rather than competition.

According to Wille v Liechtenstein ($1999$), how is 'interference' with freedom of expression interpreted?

It is widely interpreted to include any form of formality, condition, restriction, or penalty.

Under Article $10(2)$, what objective justifies interference specifically related to the legal system?

Maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.