Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Article 10 (1.) Freedom of Expression (Impart Information and ideas…

- - - - Can refuse if info is sensitive or costs too high
  - - - Wide range of acceptance;e criticism with respect to politician than such as regards a private individual
      - Public Interest expression
        
        Legitimate public debate or concern (Steel and Morris v UK)
    - - Vital for foresting individual fulfilment and development of ideas
      - Courts reluctant to restrict this freedom due to its particular significance as an 'intrinsic and instrumental right'
      - Margin of appreciation (Otto-Preminger)
      - Variety between states as to what is acceptable - cultures/values
      - Unpalatable views/publication contain ideas, but can be restricted for hate speech under Article 10 (Garuady v France)
    - - Protection for elements of a free press, including protection of journalistic sources (Goodwin v UK) (FInancial Times v ECHR)
      - Axel Springer AG v UK
      - Interference with freedom of the press has to be justified even where there is no public interest in question (A v B plc)
  - - - Insufficient reasons to provide access
        
        Voyeurism
        
        Sensationalism
      - Purpose of info request
      - Nature of information sought
      - Role of the applicant
      - Ready and available information
  - - - Public protest
      - Demonstrations
- - - - S
        
        National Security and territorial integrity + public safety
        
        Court rarely challenges legitimate national security cases argued by the state (Greece case)
        
        No public interest defence available under Official Secrets Act 1989 (R v Shayler)
        
        Territorial integrity means borders of the state
      - C
        
        For the prevention of disorder or Crime
        
        Interference justified by stating it would cause crime or disorder so criminal offence is needed to protect against it
        
        State's actions must be proportionate (Surek v Turkey)
      - H
        
        Protection of Health or morals
        
        Debate about abortion combines health and morality issues (Open Door and Dublin Well Woman v Ireland)
        
        Difficulty in that different states have different view of morals and obscenity (Muller v Switzerland)
    - - Human rights law - Obscenity
        
        Obscene Publications Act 1959 (and there is a 1964 Act) sets out legal test for obscenity
        
        s1(1) deprave and corrupt person likely to read, see or her it (based on common law test of obscenity R v Hicklin)
        
        Theatres Act 1968
        
        Performances
        
        Plays
        
        Obscenity extended to live broadcasts under Broadcasting act 1990
    - - Protect reputation/rights of Others
        
        ECtHr balance right to fair trial and presumption of innocence under Article 6, 8 and 10 (Bedat v Switzerland)
        
        Defamation in the UK included under this restriction
        
        Libel is defamation in permanent form (broadcasting)
        
        Slander is transient form - spoken, conduct or gesture
        
        Statement C complains of must be this to be defamatory
        
        Defamatory meaning (ordinary person would think wrose of C)
        
        Identifiable
        
        Published to a third party
        
        Defamation Act 2013 requires C to show publication caused them serious harm (serious financial loss in businesses)
        
        Defences to Defamation
        
        Truth (s2 Defamation Act 2013 if D can show it is substantially true)
        
        Honest Opinion (s3 Defamation Act 2013 if statement was an opinion which could have been held by an honest person on the basis of facts at time of publishing).
        
        Publication on a matter of public interest (s4 Defamation Act if statement was on a matter of public interest and a reasonable belief that publishing the statement was in the public interest - what is in the public interest is very wide)
        
        Internet defences
        
        2 more items...
    - - Maintain authority / impartiality of the judiciary
        
        There are usually restrictions on the press disclosing details in advance of a trial so that the case can proceed fairly without the views of the media swaying those involved. (Sunday TImes v UK)
    - - Preventing disclosure of information in confidence
        
        In Bedat v Switzerland the court suggested the journalist had not obtained the information by unlawful means, however, as a professional journalist he must have been aware of the confidential nature of the information.
        
        In Guja v Moldova (2008) it was decided the public interest in having the information about wrongdoing within public office was so important in a democratic society that it outweighed the interest in maintaining public confidence in that office
    - - Any limitation of freedom of expression should be based on clear, accessible and reasonably foreseeable law.
        
        Yildirim v. Turkey (2013) blanket blocking of to sites.google.com breached Art. 10