Article 10

Freedom of expression

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 pubic authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent states from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

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 necessary in 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 and 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.

This means that everyone has the right to hold opinions and to express their views. This applies even if those views are controversial, offensive, shocking or disturbing. The right can be restricted in certain circumstances, but only to the extent necessary to meet the legitimate aim of public safety or national security, to prevent disorder or crime, to protect health or morals, to protect the reputations or rights of others, to prevent the disclosure of confidential information or to maintain the impartiality of the judiciary.

Expression includes publishing books, articles or leaflets, TV or radio broadcasting, communication on the internet etc. It covers the right to receive information, so covers your rights as a speaker or as a member of the audience. Restrictions for hate speech, for example, where the language used would be insulting to particular groups, are likely to be justified when balancing the rights of others.

What this means for a local authority

This Article will be relevant for media and press work, writing speeches and speaking in public, regulating demonstrations and restricting or regulating communications through the internet.

When drawing up policies and practices, consideration should be given to whether these will interfere with a person’s right to freedom of expression. If so, restrictions may be justified to balance the rights of others, but would need to be the minimum necessary to meet the aims. A balance also needs to be struck between one person’s freedom of expression and another’s right to privacy.

Case Law Examples 

• In Financial Times v UK, the European Court of Human Rights decided that a requirement for journalists to disclose leaked documents which might have revealed their source was an unjustified interference with their right to freedom of expression.

• In Pay v UK, while the European Court of Human Rights considered that dismissal of the claimant for expressions of his sexual identity (which included photographic representations on the internet) was an interference with his right to freedom of expression, this was justified in the particular circumstances of this case where the claimant was employed in the public sector and it was important for the employer to maintain the respect of the public.