Freedom with Limitations: The Nature of Free Expression in the European Case-Law

Authors: Laszlo Vari

Abstract:

In the digital age, the spread of the mobile world and the nature of the cyberspace, offers many new opportunities for the prevalence of the fundamental right to free expression, and therefore, for free speech and freedom of the press; however, these new information communication technologies carry many new challenges. Defamation, censorship, fake news, misleading information, hate speech, breach of copyright etc., are only some of the violations, all of which can be derived from the harmful exercise of freedom of expression, all which become more salient in the internet. Here raises the question: how can we eliminate these problems, and practice our fundamental freedom rightfully? To answer this question, we should understand the elements and the characteristic of the nature of freedom of expression, and the role of the actors whose duties and responsibilities are crucial in the prevalence of this fundamental freedom. To achieve this goal, this paper will explore the European practice to understand instructions found in the case-law of the European Court of Human rights for the rightful exercise of freedom of expression.

Keywords: Collision of rights, European case-law, freedom opinion and expression, media law, freedom of information, online expression

Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3298926

References:

[1] UN Human Rights Committee International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, General comment No. 34 (Article 19: Freedoms of opinion and expression), 2011.
[2] ECtHR, Editorial board of Pravoye Delo and Shtekel vs. Ukraine (Application no. 33014/05) § 66, 2011.
[3] ECtHR, Ahmet Yildirim vs. Turkey (Application no. 3111/10) § 33., 2006.
[4] ECtHR, Internet: case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, 2015.
[5] ECtHR Becker vs. Norway §65. 2017.
[6] ECtHR, Delfi AS vs. Estonia (Application no. 64569/09) § 65. 2015.
[7] ECtHR, MTE and Index.hu Zrt vs. Hungary (Application no. 22947/13) § 91., 2016.
[8] UN General Assembly, Human Rights Council, La Rue, Frank, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, 2011.
[9] ECtHR, Axel Springer AG vs. Germany (Application no. 39954/08), 2012.
[10] ECtHR, Růžový panter, o.s. c. République tchèque (Requête no 20240/08) § 32., 2012.
[11] ECtHR, Verlagsgruppe Droemer Knaur GmbH & Co. KG vs. Germany (Application no. 35030/13) § 60., 2017.
[12] ECtHR, Times Newspaper Ltd. vs. the United Kingdom (Application nos. 23676/03 and 3002/03) § 47., 2005.
[13] ECtHR, Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy vs. Finland (Application no. 931/13), 2017.
[14] ECtHR, Társaság a Szabadságjogokért vs. Hungary (Application no. 37374/05) § 37., 2009.
[15] ECtHR, OOO Ivpress and Others vs. Russia (Applications nos. 33501/04, 38608/04, 35258/05 and 35618/05) § 72., 2013.
[16] ECtHR, Fredrik Neij and Peter Sunde Kolmisoppi vs. Sweden (Application no. 40397/12) § 12., 2013.
[17] ECtHR, K.U. vs. Finland (Application no. 2872/02) § 45., 2008.
[18] ECtHR, Stoll vs. Switzerland (Application no. 69698/01) § 128., 2007.
[19] ECtHR, E.S. vs. Austria (Application no. 38450/12) § 43., 2018.
[20] ECtHR, Aydın Tatlav vs. Turkey (Application no. 50692/99) § 27., 2006.
[21] The European Commission for Democracy through Law (“Venice Commission”) “Report on the relationship between Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Religion: the issue of regulation and prosecution of Blasphemy, Religious Insult and Incitement to Religious Hatred” §§ 89-92., 2008.
[22] The European Parliament, on the situation of fundamental rights in the European Union (2012) (2013/2078(INI)) § 35., 2014.
[23] ECtHR, EON vs. France (Application no. 26118/10) § 59., 2013.
[24] ECtHR, Willem c. France (Application no 10883/05) § 3., 2009.
[25] ECtHR, Mouvement raëlien suisse vs. Switzerland (Application no. 16354/06) § 75., 2012.
[26] ECtHR, Animal Defenders International vs. the United Kingdom (Application no. 48876/08) § 118., 2013.