Art 10: Right to free experssion Flashcards
Handyside v UK (1976)
QUALIFIED RIGHT:
UK Banned a book that contained “Sexual Content” and was written for schoolchildren. Handyside said not publishing was a breach of their Art 10 rights. Wide margin of appreciation. UK was allowed to ban the book.
Verdict: UK
Steel & Morris v UK (2005)
PUBLIC INTEREST:
Steel & Morris outside McDonalds handing out leaflets and McDonalds sued them for defamation. M won in court but S&M went to ECtHR and sued under inequality of arms and won.
Verdict: Steel & Morris
Sunday Times v UK (1979)
PUBLIC INTEREST:
Thalidomide cases, newspaper wanted to report them. UK Wouldn’t let them. ECtHR said it was a matter of public interest and went in favour of the Sunday times.
Verdict: Sunday Times
Otto-Preminger-Institut v Austria (1994)
ARTISTIC EXPRESSION:
Jesus porn was banned in Austria (Much like Handyside) Wide margin of appreciation.
Verdict: Austria
Garaudy v France (2003)
INCITEMENT OF HATRED:
Garaudy was convicted for holocaust denial after he wrote a book denying the holocaust and criticising Jews. ECtHR said his opinions were protected by art 10 (1) but this is limited by in Art 10 (2) “The Protection of reputation or rights in others”
Verdict: France
Goodwin v UK (1996)
BALANCE BETWEEN ART 10 & ART 8:
Journalist refused to give his source. Art 10 said he was right and making him disclose his source would be a breach of Art 10.
Verdict: Goodwin
Axel Springer v Germany (2012)
BALANCE BETWEEN ART 10 & ART 8:
Well known German Actor was arrested for drug possession. Newspaper wanted to publish it but the country said they couldn’t as it was infringing on his personal life. The newspaper only wrote about the arrest so ECtHR said that it was in the Public Interest.
Verdict: Axel Springer
Editorial Board of Parvoye Delo & Shtekel v Ukraine (2011)
TECHNOLOGY:
Newspaper published a letter found on the internet. There is nothing in Ukrainian Law prohibiting this being done. Art 10 states that the country must have a legal basis to convict. So the case failed.
Verdict: Editorial Board of Parvoye Delo & Shtekel
R (On the Application of Pro-Life Alliance) v BBC (2003)
POLITICAL EXPRESSION:
BBC refused to broadcast an advert of a live abortion on TV. Went against public decency. Courts said that there was no violation and the BBC’s aim of protecting the public outweighed the right to freedom.
Verdict: BBC
R (On the Application of Laporte) v Chief Constable of Gloucestershire Constabulary (2006)
PUBLIC PROTEST:
Passengers on a coach heading towards a protest were ordered to return to London under a police escort. There was no evidence that a breach of peace was imminent and the police’s actions were disproportionate.
Verdict: Laporte
Munim Abdul & Others v DPP (2011)
PUBLIC PROTEST:
Appellants found guilty of public order offences after shouting “Baby killers” at soldiers returning from Afghanistan. The courts upheld their conviction as the actions went beyond what is considered a legitimate protest.
Verdict: DPP
Mosley v News Group Newspapers Ltd (2008)
BALANCE BETWEEN ART 10 & ART 8:
C was a public figure in F1. News Group published a story about him using prostitutes and doing weird stuff. The Courts held that his right to privacy has been violated and there was no public interest in his life.
Verdict: Mosley
Campbell v MGN Ltd (2004)
BALANCE BETWEEN ART 10 & ART 8:
Naomi Campbell was photographed by newspapers coming out of Narcotics Anonymous meetings. HoL agreed that the info was private and ruled in favour of her.
Verdict: Campbell
A v B (Flitcroft v MGN Ltd) (2002)
BALANCE BETWEEN ART 10 & ART 8:
Married with kids footballer decided to have sexual relationships with 2 18/19 year old girls. He was granted an interim injunction for the girls not to come forward with their story. Yet he lost the case as Lord Woolf gave his famous role model speech.
Verdict: B (MGN Ltd)
Thompson & Venables v News Corp (2001)
PROTECTION OF IDENTITY:
Indefinite Injunction was granted to prevent disclosure of whereabouts of T or V due to a serious risk of physical safety.
Verdict: T & V
