Page 317 - Law and the Media

Law and the Media
By reason of the ‘duties and responsibilities’ inherent in the exercise of freedom
of expression, the safeguard afforded by Article 10 to journalists in relation to
reporting on issues of general interest is subject to the proviso that they are acting
in good faith in order to provide accurate and reliable information in accordance
with the ethics of journalism.

Other areas
The necessity of public interference in a democratic society requires that it have as its
objective the furtherance of one or more of the public aims set out in Article 10(2). Some of
these grounds correspond to the limitations found in other provisions of the Convention
(national security, public safety and prevention of disorder or crime), while the rest are
specific to Article 10.

The classification or identification of the objective for which the interference has been
imposed may be crucial to the outcome of a case.

Broadcasting
Article 10 does not prevent the state from having a licensing system for broadcasting,
television and cinema enterprises. However, the licensing power requires justification under
Article 10(2) (Groppera Radio AG v Switzerland (1990)). Limitations on broadcast
transmissions, particularly the regulation of content, cannot be founded on the licensing
power alone, but must also meet the test of necessity for one of the purposes expressly
provided in Article 10(2).

A state monopoly on broadcasting which prohibits other operators from establishing cable
television has been held to be incompatible with the Convention as being unnecessary in a
democratic society (Informationsverein Lentia v Austria (1993)).

United Kingdom violations
The absence of a clear ‘right of expression’ in English law has meant that United Kingdom
applications based on Article 10 have regularly come before the European Commission and
Court of Human Rights. However, it should be noted that the European Court of Human
Rights has found the United Kingdom to be in violation of Article 10 on only six
occasions:

The ‘Thalidomide’ contempt case (Sunday Times v United Kingdom (1979))
The two ‘Spycatcher’ cases (Sunday Times v United Kingdom (No 2) (1991);
Observer & Guardian v United Kingdom (1991))
The ‘Tolstoy’ libel damages case (Tolstoy Miloslavsky v United Kingdom
(1995))
The case on the disclosure of sources by journalists (Goodwin v United Kingdom
(1996))
The ‘SPUC’ election leaflet case (Bowman v United Kingdom (1998)).
280