Article 10: Free expression Flashcards
Rights under Article 10:
(1) Freedom to hold opinions
(2) Freedom to impart information and ideas
(3) Freedom to receive information and ideas
Goodwin v UK (1996)
A trainee journalist is ordered to disclose a source for information he has got about a company, apparently from a confidential document
Held that s10 CCA 1981 is adequately framed to be prescribed by law
But the order to disclose the source was not necessary, because there was already an injunction, so identifying the source only served the purposes of the company’s own internal desire to identify the leaker
Communications Act 2003 s321
Political adverts are not allowed on TV or radio, which includes adverts designed to:
- Influence the outcome of elections/referendums
- Seek to change the law or influence public bodies or decision-makers
- Influence public opinion on a matter which, in the UK, is a matter of public controversy
- Etc.
Contempt of Court Act 1981 s10
A journalist can’t be forced to disclose a source, unless it’s necessary in the interests of justice or national security or the prevention of disorder or crime.
Case showing a wide margin of appreciation in matters of public morals in Article 10 cases
Handyside v UK (1976)
A man produces a book intended to teach children about sex. This is banned. No breach of A10 - states have a wide margin of appreciation in matters of morals
Case showing that forcing a journalist to disclose a source could breach A10
Financial Times v UK (2009)
A10 requires positive protection of the free press
Case setting out rules for balancing A8 and A10
Axel Springer v Germany
Rules include whether information contributes to a debate of public interest, the prior conduct of the person, etc.
German actor had his drug conviction exposed by newspaper - this breached his A8 rights
Case showing it doesn’t breach A10 to ban a film that offends Catholics
Otto-Preminger-Institut v Austria (1994)
Case where a man published a book denying the Holocaust
Garaudy v France (2003)
Convicting the man for publishing this book breached his A10 rights
Case showing that a restriction on A10 must serve a “pressing social need” (national security issue)
Observer and Guardian v UK (1995)
Guardian newspaper publishes memoirs of a spy - this can’t be banned, especially as memoir is already published in America
Case in which paintings showing sexually explicit scences could be banned without breaching A10
Muller v Switzerland (1988)
No breach of A10 in this case
Case showing that a restriction on A10 must serve a “pressing social need” (interests of justice issue)
Sunday Times v UK (1979)
Sunday Times publishes information about thalidomide during ongoing civil trial - there is an injunction against this - held that this doesn’t answer to a pressing social need
Case showing that awarding excessive damages for libel can breach A10
Steel and Morris v UK (2005)
Steel and Morris published leaflets against McDonald’s. Held that to make massive awards against such individuals effectively bankrupted them, and the risk of this discouraged free expression, breaching A10
Case showing that there can be restrictions on expression under Official Secrets Act, and acting in “public interest” is no defence
R v Shayler (2002)
Defendant worked for security services and disclosed documents
Case in which a UK artist and a gallery owner were convicted of outraging public decency
R v Gibson (1991)
Gibson exhibited a pair of earrings made with freeze-dried human foetuses attached to a mannequin’s head
