Freedom of Expression Flashcards
Article 40.6
State guarantees liberty for the exercise of expression of convictions and opinions
However, shall not be used to undermine public order or morality or authority of the State
Murphy v IRTC
Freedom of expression has a public element to it
Mahon
‘the right to freedom of expression extends the same protection to worthless, prurient and meretricious publication as it does to worthy, serious and socially valuable works’
Marine Terminals Ltd v Loughnane
Guarantee of freedom protects use of strong language delivered in a robust and articulate way
O’Brien v RTE
Plaintiff granted interlocutory injunction preventing RTE from publishing his bank details on the basis of protecting his right to privacy
State (Lynch) v Cooney
Order prevented any promotional broadcasts of Sinn Fein
Restriction of freedom of expression was permissible
‘It places upon the State the obligation to ensure that these organs of public opinion shall not be used to undermine public order or public morality’
Hunter & Callaghan
‘in certain cases, in the context of the democratic nature of the State, primacy may have to be given to freedom of expression’
Leech v Independent Newspaper
Does not refer to matters which are ‘merely titillating or salacious or gossipy’
State v Walshe
Allegations of malpractice will result in a contempt of court
Re Kennedy & McCann
Publishing of information regarding these types of cases will be a contempt of court
Herrity v Associated Newspaper
There may be occasions where a person photographed in a public place could successfully argue a breach of privacy rights
Held that information gained unlawfully and then published is in breach of right of privacy
Hickey v Sunday Newspaper
There may be occasions where a person photographed in a public place could successfully argue a breach of privacy rights
No breach in this case
factors - plaintiff was performing a public function , age and identity of child already known
Nolan v Sunday Newspaper
Defendant newspaper published an article about the plaintiff being an organiser of ‘sex/swinger parties’
Breach of privacy rights
Mahon v Post Publications
Prior restraint can occur where ‘his or her name will be irreparably and seriously damaged if an impending publication takes place’
Cogley & Aherne v RTE
In such cases, the court should consider
1) Context and circumstances in which the information was obtained
2) Special interest
considerations in favour of
the broadcasting
programmes
3) Adequacy of damages as an
available remedy
Article 10(1) ECHR
‘everyone has the right to freedom of expression’
Sunday Times v United Kingdom
Applicant wrote letters to publish to assist the plaintiff in their civil proceedings
Against the testing, manufacturing and marketing of the drug ‘thalidomide’
The Court first found that the injunctions interfered with the applicants’ freedom of expression
Lingens v Austria
‘The limits of acceptable criticism are accordingly wider as regards a politician as such than as regards a private individual’
PETA Deutschland v Germany
Group used Holocaust victims to compare with farm animals for campaign
No violation of Article 10 due to public interest
Mosley v United Kingdom
News of the World published article with headline: ‘F1 boss has sick Nazi orgy with 5 hookers’
‘there is a distinction to be drawn between reporting facts - even if controversial - capable of contributing to a debate of general public interest in a democratic society, and making tawdry allegations about an individual’s private life’
Article 40.6.2
Laws regulating the manner in which the right of forming associations and unions and the right of free assembly may be exercised shall contain no political, religious or class discrimination
DPP v Kehoe
Right to assemble peaceably without arms
Brendan Dunne v Fitzpatrick
‘The right of the citizens to assemble peaceably and to express their opinions freely are guaranteed only subject to public order and morality’
WP v Poland
Group which was created to revive anti-Semitism could not invoke the protection of the Convention
El Co v Kennedy
Picketers’ language and actions should be focused on
Portmarnock Golf Club
The right to freedom of association was a ‘pre-existing natural right, inhering in human kind by virtue of its rational and social being and is essential to the exercise of various other rights…’
Tierney v Amalgamated Society of Woodworkers
P sought declaration that he was qualified for membership of the D union and an order directing it to accept him
The union had refused to accept him as he was ‘not a genuine carpenter’
Court refused to make order as there was qualifications that needed to be met
Murphy v Stewart
Right to create union but no right to join one
Educational Company v Fitzpatrick & Others
‘I hold that there is an implicit guarantee in the Constitution that citizens shall not be coerced to join associations or unions against their will’
Dublin Colleges ASA v City of Dublin VEC
‘no corresponding obligation on anybody or person, such as the Defendants herein, to recognise that association for the purpose of negotiating the terms and conditions of employment of its members for any purpose’
Loftus v AG
Acknowledged that the legislation did impose a curb on the freedom of political action but believed it was justified as ‘it seems proper and in the public interest to regulate such statutory rights and facilities’
Mohan v Ireland
SC held that ‘freedom of association does not mean that an individual has a right to force himself or herself upon a group which does not wish to associate with him or her’
