L17-Human Rights I - Freedom of Expression

Article 10 ECHR – Freedom of Expression

Protects the right to hold opinions, receive, and impart information without state interference. Includes political speech, artistic expression, and the press. Subject to restrictions necessary in a democratic society.

Scope of Article 10.

Covers all forms of communication, including speech, writing, art, and media.

Lingens v Austria (1986) – Political criticism is highly protected under Article 10

Key Case: Handyside v UK [1976]

“The protection of freedom of expression extends to ideas that offend, shock, or disturb.”

Obscene publication of a book for children was banned, but the Court upheld the margin of appreciation for states.

Permissible Restrictions under Article 10(2)

Restrictions allowed if they are:

1. Prescribed by law

2. Pursue a legitimate aim (e.g., national security, public safety, prevention of crime, protection of reputation)

3. Necessary in a democratic society (Proportional and justified).

Case: Sunday Times v UK (1979)

Injunction preventing publication on thalidomide scandal violated Article 10. Public interest outweighed the need for protecting court authority.

Political Expression – High Protection

Bowman v UK (1998) – Restrictions on political leaflets before an election breached Article 10.

Courts give high protection to political speech as essential for democracy.

Artistic and Commercial Expression

Otto-Preminger-Institut v Austria (1994) – Ban on a film deemed offensive to religious beliefs was upheld.

Commercial speech also protected but with lower importance than political speech.

Balancing with Other Rights

Campbell v MGN Ltd (2004) – Balancing Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 8 (privacy).

Newspapers must justify publication of private details.

Proportionality in Freedom of Expression

Courts apply proportionality to assess whether interference is justified.

R (ProLife Alliance) v BBC (2003) – Ban on graphic anti-abortion broadcast was upheld as proportionate.

Margin of Appreciation

ECtHR allows states discretion in regulating expression, especially in sensitive areas like morality and religion.

Wingrove v UK (1996) – Ban on a blasphemous video upheld due to wide margin of appreciation.

High-Level Exam Answer Structure

1. Identify Expression: What type of expression is at issue?

2. Article 10(1) Breach? Has there been an interference?

3. Article 10(2) Justification: Is the restriction lawful, legitimate, and necessary?

4. Proportionality Test: Is the restriction the least restrictive means?

5. Apply Case Law: Use key cases for support.

6. Conclusion: Was the restriction justified or is it a breach of Article 10?