BAHRIA UNIVERSITY ISLAMABAD CAMPUS (BUIC)

LAW DEPARTMENT

ASSIGNMENT No: 01 HUMAN RIGHTS LAW

SUBMITTED TO: SIR AHMED ALI KHAN

SUBMITTED BY: MUHAMMAD UMAR (01-177182-027)

CLASS: LLB IV

TOPIC: FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION (ARTICLE 10)

DATED: MARCH 21st, 2020

1
Contents
Introduction...............................................................................................................2
Common law value of freedom of Expression..........................................................3
Importance.................................................................................................................4
The Scope of Article 10(1)........................................................................................4
Freedom to receive information................................................................................5
Convention................................................................................................................5
Freedom of Media.....................................................................................................6
Restrictions under article 10(2).................................................................................6
Duties and responsibilities:-...................................................................................6
Prescribed by law:-.................................................................................................7
Expression on political and public issues..................................................................7
Broad definition of political speech:-.....................................................................7
Restriction on political speech...................................................................................7
Commercial expression:-...........................................................................................8
BIBLIOGRAPHY.....................................................................................................8

2
Introduction
Freedom of expression is broadly known as the fundamental right in a liberal, democratic
society. There are, however, important and legitimate reasons why freedom of expression may
need to be restricted in order to protect other important rights and freedoms such as the right to a
fair trial or to private life. Article 10 establishes in its first paragraph a general right to freedom
of expression and then, in its second paragraph, identifies the only basis upon which the right can
be restricted. The necessity for such restrictions must be established by the state and must be
subject to scrutiny by the courts.1

The right to speak freely of discourse is depicted as the opportunity to express assessments and
thoughts without restrictions or preventions. It's ones freedom to talk without being controlled or
constrained. Opportunity of articulation which is an equivalent word of the right to speak freely
of discourse, is utilized to portray ones freedom to verbal discourse as well as opportunity of any
demonstration of getting or sending data or sentiments, without considering the mechanism of
correspondence utilized. For all intents and purposes, this privilege to the right to speak freely of
discourse isn't plainly clarified in numerous nations and accordingly it's normally dependent
upon constraints by certain types of government.

The privilege to the right to speak freely of discourse or opportunity or opportunity of

articulation is perceived in the UDHR (all-inclusive Declaration of Human Rights), as a human
right. It's additionally perceived in the ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights), where it's characterized as "the privilege to hold assessments without obstruction" (Vile
2007). Everybody on the planet is qualified for the privilege of communicating oneself
uninhibitedly. The right to speak freely of discourse is perceived by numerous human rights
associations in Africa, Europe and America. The cutting edge thought of the right to speak freely
of discourse came up gradually during the European Enlightenment however the idea is likewise
found in human rights reports of the early man. The 1689 Bill of rights in England permitted the
right to speak freely of discourse in parliament while the privileges of resident and man
announcement which came up during the French upheaval of 1789, especially recognized the
ability to speak freely as an unavoidable human right (Finan 2008 37).2

1
Human Rights Law, Howard Davis
2
https://www.ukessays.com
3
INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL
RIGHTS (ICCPR)
Article 19

 Everybody will reserve the option to hold conclusions without obstruction.

 Everybody will reserve the option to opportunity of articulation; this privilege will

incorporate opportunity to look for, get and give data and thoughts of different sorts,

paying little respect to boondocks, either orally, in composing or in print, as

craftsmanship, or through some other media of his decision.

The activity of the rights accommodated n section 3 of this article conveys with it exceptional

obligations what's more, obligations. It might in this manner be dependent upon specific

confinements, yet these will just be for example, are given by law and are vital:

(a) For regard of the privilege or notorieties of others;

(b) For the assurance of national security or of open request, or of general wellbeing or ethics.3

Common law value of freedom of Expression

Freedom of expression is a well-recognized principle of the common law (the basic judge-made
law of England and Wales) which had been established before, and independently of, the Human
Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998). British judges on many times, demands that there is no
incompatibility between the degrees of protection afforded expression under the common law
with the protection under article 10; there is simply a difference of approach. The following
quote, from Lord Goff in one of the Spy catcher cases of the 1980’s express the point.

I can see no consistency between English law on this subject and article 10 (ECHR). This
is scarcely surprising, since we may pride ourselves on the fact that freedom of speech has
existed in this country perhaps as long as, if not longer than, it has existed in any other country in
the world. The difference is that, whereas article 10 of the convention, on according with its
admitted purpose, proceeds to state a fundamental right and then to qualify it, we in this country

3
https://en.unesco.org
4
(where everybody is free to do anything, subject only to the provisions of the law) proceed rather
on an assumption of freedom of speech, and turn to our law to discover the established
exceptions to it.

Case General Vs Guardian Newspapers and others

The importance of freedom of expression in common law continues to be asserted by

the judges. It has been recognized by law lords as attaining ‘the status of a constitutional right
with attendant high normative force’

Case: - McCartan Turkington Vs Times Newspapers)

As per under the jurisdiction of the law of England and Wales issues of freedom of speech can
arise, for example:

In ‘defamation’ proceedings where a person attempts to find the damages for false
statements made which damage their reputation.
To protect secret/confidential information/data through an action for ‘breach of
confidence’.
To protect intellectual property rights such as copy rights and trademarks.
In the criminal law, such as public order offences which may have been committed by
political demonstrators.
Some of these issues will involve the HRA 1998 directly, for example where the
interpretation of an Act of Parliament is involved or where it is alleged that the police or
some other public authority have failed to respect freedom of expression. Where, like
defamation or breach of confidence, it is essentially a matter of law, freedom of expression is
still relevant, either because the courts are public authorities required to act compatibly with
convention rights or, irrespective of the HRA 1998, because freedom of expression is a long-
standing value in common law. As Lord Steyn said, in Reynolds Vs Times Newspapers Ltd
freedom of expression is the rule and regulation of speech is the exception requiring
justification’.4

4
Human Rights Law, Howard Davis
5
Importance
From one of its earliest cases, Handysid Vs United Kingdom (1976) 1 EHRR 737, onwards
the court of Human Rights has continuously recognized the importance of the right to
freedom of expression within the convention scheme.

Freedom of Expression is:

Necessary for individual self-fulfillment,

An essential foundation of a democratic society. A democratic society, characterized by

pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness, is a necessary condition in which human rights
can be protected and justice and peace can flourish.

The Scope of Article 10(1)

Article 10 likewise ensures your entitlement to impart and convey what needs be in any medium
– including through words, pictures and activities. It's regularly used to guard press opportunity
and ensure writers' sources. This correct spreads:

Political expression– including quiet fights and exhibits

Artistic expression

Commercial expression– especially when it additionally raises matters of genuine open

discussion and concern.

Article 10 protects ‘freedom of expression’, not just freedom of speech. Expressive activity is not
confined to speech. It can, for example, extend to expressive acts that do not involve words at all,
such as the playing of music, dancing or the wearing of particular clothes.5

Political expression is given particular protection under article 10. 'Political' is given a
wide definition and includes, for instance, participating in political demonstrations. Article 10
also extends to artistic and commercial expression, although restrictions may be easier to justify
in these areas than in respect of political speech

5
https://justice.org.uk

6
An expressive act can, of course, give rise to issues within the ambit of more than one article.
Restrictions on dress for example could give rise to issue under article 8 the right to private life
or under article 9 the right to freedom of thought conscience and religion the tendency of the
court is to decide that one article is on predominantly in issue and that all substantive issues can
be dealt with under its terms.

Article 10 protects not just the ideas and information in themselves but also particular way an
individual seeks to express him or herself; Article 10 includes right to speak in one’s own voice.
Political speech, artistic speech and commercial speech are considered below.6

Freedom to receive information

Access to information/data given by government and other public bodies is compulsory for an
effective political democracy. The judgements and choices of a political kind that citizens make
depend on the information that is available and that depends, largely, on the ability of individuals
and organizations and, most importantly, the media to obtain information. Getting information is
the most important aspect to freedom of expression since the overwhelming majority of people
have no realistic access to the media in order to express their views and opinions.

Convention
The court of human rights has held that the right to receive information prevents the government
from restricting the flow of information that others are prepared to give. It cannot be used to
compel the government or others to disclose information it wishes to keep secret.

Freedom of Media
The importance of a free media has been emphasized time and again by the court of human
rights and freedom of the press is clearly protected under article 10 (1) (many of the cases refer
to ‘press' but include TV).

The principles taken from leading convention cases on media freedom such as Lingens Vs
Austria (1986) 8 EHRR 407, and Fressoz and Roire Vs France (2001) 31 EHRR 2.

Safeguarding the freedom of the media is of particular importance for the maintenance of
freedom of expression.

The media is the ‘task’ of imparting Information and ideas of public interest.
6
www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk
7
 The public has a right to receive such information and ideas.
The media has a vital ‘watchdog' role to play in democracy.
It is incumbent on the media to ‘impart’ information and ideas on political issues
including controversial ones.

Restrictions under article 10(2)

Any restrictions on speech are expressive eggs that are within the scope of article 10 (1) will be
violations unless the state can prove that the restriction is justified in terms of article 10(2).

Under the HRA 1998, UK courts have adopted the basic Strasbourg principles under article
10(2).7

Duties and responsibilities:-

The convention text recognizes that the freedom of expression carries with it ‘duties and
responsibilities’ and it is on this basis that is speech can reasonably be restricted. Whilst the
duties and responsibilities class can influence the way a court views various issues, it does not
relieve a court of the need for close scrutiny of the reasons adduced by States for restricting
expression.

‘Duties and responsibilities' have been emphasized by the court of human rights in the following
situations:

The duties of publishers of books aimed at children which had an allegedly obscene content:

The duties of the media, owners, editors and journalists, in the context of reporting terrorism and
armed struggle, to ensure that there reports do not become a vehicle for the dissemination of hate
speech and promotion of violence.8

Prescribed by law:-
Restrictions on freedom of expression must meet the standard of 'legality' which pervades the
convention. Specially there must be;

A basis in law for the restriction.

The law must be accessible to the individual likely to be affected by it.

7
https://en.unesco.org
8
http://www.legislation.gov.uk

8
That terms of the law must be sufficiently precise for the individual to be able to regulate his or
her conduct without breaking the law.

The law must not be arbitrary and incompatible with the 'rule of law'.

Expression on political and public issues

In assessing the democratic ‘necessity’ of any restriction on this page the court of Human Rights
has emphasized again and again the importance of protecting political speech. Very little, if any,
margin of appreciation is allowed in respect of such speech. Likewise, UK courts are unlikely to
defer overmuch in this context. Restraints on speech which, for example, involve criticism of
ministers, officials or government policy will be hard to justify.9

Broad definition of political speech:-

Political speech is given a very broad definition. It is not confined to party political matters but
includes information about, and comment on, matters of general public interest. The political or
public dimension to speech trigger article 10 protection even if there may be other aspects to it
( such as commercial self-interest) which, without the political aspect, might make restriction
easier to justify.

Restriction on political speech

Despite the importance of expression dealing with public and social affairs, the court of Human
Rights does recognized the right of states to suppress speech in certain circumstances.
Proportionate restrictions aimed at protecting national security, for example, are permitted. An
important example arose out of the long running ‘spy catcher’ saga of the late 1980’s.10

Commercial expression:-
Commercial speech, such as that found in catalogues or advertising, is capable of protection
under article 10 (1). However, the court of Human Rights accepts that States have a very
wide margin appreciation over the need for restrictions. Speech which is entirely or
predominantly commercial enjoys only a low level of protection; it is a relatively easy for the
authorities to show that the public good requires restriction on speech. If commercial speech

9
http://www.law-democracy.org
10
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com

9
 also has political overtones, then it will enjoy greater protection, as in Barthold Vs Germany
(1985) 7 EHRR 383.

Restrictions on advertising are also, usually, compatible with article 10 so long as the public
interest served by the Ban out weights the interest of the public in hearing about the products
in issue.

In R (British American Tobacco) Vs Secretary of the state for health (2004) EWHC 2493
(Admin), the ban on tobacco advertising in the United Kingdom was upheld by the
administrative Court. It satisfied the need for proportionality where restrictions on human
rights are concerned. Proportionality was measured against the wider margin of appreciation
left to the national authorities by the court of human rights.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
https://heinonline.org
Human Rights, Dr. Howard Davis
https://www.ukessays.com
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com
https://rm.coe.int
http://www.legislation.gov.uk
https://en.unesco.org
www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk
https://www.loc.gov
https://justice.org.uk
http://www.law-democracy.org

10