Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Article 10 (Any interference with FOE must comply with Article 10(2) (It…
Article 10
-
Artistic freedom
This does not usually have the same status as political expression but is considered important. Otto Preminger v Austria ("art helps shape public opinion"). The banning of a film may be justified to protect the rights of others - see also Wingrove v UK.
VBK v Austria - the injunction granted against VBK from displaying a controversial painting was found to breach Article 10 as it was a disproportionate interference. Highlights reluctance of ECtHRs to interfere with the right
Article 10 (1) - everyone is entitled to freedom of expression including the right to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas
This is a qualified right and can be restricted in accordance with the conditions set down in Article 10(2)
Political Expression
Vogt v Germany - the right to hold opinions includes political opinions. These are given a high value by the ECtHRs
-
FOE includes the right to express things which might shock, offend or disturb - Handyside v UK, Redmond-Bate v DPP (but must not incite violence)
Limits on FOE can be seen in cases such as Nicol v DPP (fishing disrupted); Abdul v DPP (soldiers parade); Hammond v DPP (anti-homosexuality slogans and speech). See also Steel v UK on breach of the peace - the North Yorkshire protesters were lawfully arrested; those in London were not.
Open Door Counselling v Ireland - FOE includes the right for people to receive information as well as the rights of others to impart information (abortion info)
FOE can include the right to freedom of information in some circumstances - MHB v Hungary (see also Leander v Sweden)
Steel and Morris v UK - the fact that legal aid was
not available to defendants in a defamation case brought by McDonalds. This breached the equality of arms principle and also freedom expression as Steel and Morris were environmental protesters.