article 10

• a10 - right to freedom of expression
• qualified right - strike a balence between individual and community
• handyside v uk - banned a book - was proportionate and within margin of appreciation
• 3 freedoms of expression - hold opinions - impart info and ideas - recieve info and ideas
• expression - words, pictures, actions and protests
• hold opinions - state cannot indoctrinate or discriminate between those holding different ideas
• freedom to impart info - includes those which others might find offensive
• to recieve info - does not have a duty to provide info but cannot restrict from recieving it
• guerra v italy - state doesn't have to inform citiizens - pollution from a powerplant
• high value - political and religious expression
• low value - artistic and commercial expression
• harder to interfere with high value forms of expression
• low value have a wider margin of appreciation - more room to decide to restrict
• political example - protests - supporting specific groups
• religious examples - going to church - supporting religious groups
• commercial examples - communication on business - adverts
• freedom of info act - allows access to state info
• official secrets act - prevents the sharing of certain info
• r (prolife alliance) v bbc - no violation if limited to meet a legitimate aim
• article 10(2) - conditions state must meet if limiting the right - prescribed by law - legitimate aim - be neccessary in a democratic society
• prescribed by law - must have a legal basis which is clear, precise and predictable
• legitimate aim - national security, territorial integrity and public safety, prevention of crime, protection of health or morals, protection of reputation or rights, preventing disclosure of info, maintaining authority of judiciary
• otto preminger institut v austria - no violation if justified to protect religious beliefs
• steel and morris v uk - right to protest under a10
• sunday times v uk - violation because it was in the public interest and people should have the right to know
• bop is on state to prove interference is necessary
• garaudy v france - if there is hatred there is no violation of 10 right - denying holocaust
• freedom to recieve - through lawful sources - media can provide info - no duty to provide but cannot restrict from finding out
• thompson and venebles v news corp - request for info -indefinate injunction to prevent info about identities
• mills v news group newspaper - injunction was not granted to stop newspaper from printing adress
• goodwin v uk - balence a10 and a8 - journalists refused to reveal sources
• axel springer v germany - celeb arrested for possession - public interest in story - published
• technology - law needs to be clear regarding info online
• press freedom - importance on journalistic expression - journalsit sources cannot be disclosed unless related to a crime
• 10(1) freedom of expression
• 3 ways freedom of expression is limited - prescribed by law - legitimate aim - necessary
• prescribed by law - laid down in the law
• legitimate aim - listed in 10(2)
• democratic society - meeting the aims of political expression
• spychatcher case - mi5 agent released info - once book published in us uk gov cant restrict