Freedom of expression

1. Freedom of expression from the point of view of the case Karsai v. Hungary ECHR 15.12.2009 Outi & Tuija 20.3.2012

2. Freedom of expression in the Constitution Act of Finland Section 12 - Freedom of expression and right of access to information • Everyone has the freedom of expression. Freedom of expression entails the right to express, disseminate and receive information, opinions and other communications without prior prevention by anyone. More detailed provisions on the exercise of the freedom of expression are laid down by an Act. Provisions on restrictions relating to pictorial programmes that are necessary for the protection of children may be laid down by an Act.

3. Freedom of expression in conventions • UN: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Art. 19 • Council of Europe: The EuropeanConvention on Human Rights Art. 10 • EU: The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union Art. 11

4. Council of Europe: The EuropeanConvention on Human Rights ARTICLE 10 Freedom of expression 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

5. In whatkind of situationit is possible to limit the freedom of expression?

6. Conflict!

7. Council of Europe: The ECtHR Art. 10 continues… • 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessaryin a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

8. CASE OF KARSAI v. HUNGARY • applicant’s right to freedom of expression and the general interest in promoting this freedom where issues of public interest were concerned • => violation of Article 10?

9. The applicant: Mr. Karsai, historian and university professor • In 2004: a public debate in Hungary as to whether a statue should be set up to commemorate the former Prime Minister PálTeleki • In thatcontext Mr. KarsaipubliclystatedthatTelekihadbeenresponsible for substantialanti-Semiticlegislation as well as for draggingHungary into World War II. • Mr. Karsai published an article on this subject, criticising the right-wing media, including a certain Mr B.T., for praising Teleki’s role and for making anti-Semitic statements

10. B.T. brought a civil action against the applicant • claiming that his reputation had been harmed by a passage in the article • Domestic courts: did the article concern the plaintiff himself or the right-wing and extreme right-wing media in general? • Judgement: the statement could be seen as relating to B.T. and that the applicant had failed to prove that it was true • ordered the applicant to publish a rectification and to bear the legal costs

11. The applicant complained to European Court of Human Rights • Question of the balance betweentheapplicant’s Convention rights and the plaintiff’s right to his good reputation: •  Legitimate aim - protection of the reputation or rights of others •  Necessary in a democratic society - whether the interference was necessary in a democratic society?

12. ECHR: The court’sassesment • applicant wrote the article in question in the course of a debate of utmost public interest • that its publication deserved the high level of protection granted to the press in view of its functions in a democratic society. • B.T. as part of the debate had voluntarily exposed himself to public criticism • the obligation to publish a rectification affected the applicant’s professional credibility as a historian

13. The Court concluded: • the domestic courts had not convincingly established that • protecting the reputation of a participant in a public debate was more important than the applicant’s right to freedom of expression and the general interest in promoting this freedom where issues of public interest were concerned. • Accordingly there had been a violation of Article 10.