Freedom Of Speech, Eu

Freedom of speech and public watch dogs, ECtHR Jurisprudence What principles are established by case law to strike the balance between the public watch dog role of media and other interests? By Legesse Tigabu To begin with, because of the special role played by media or the press as a “public watch dog”, it is incumbent on it to impart information and ideas on matters of public interest (Guardian and Observer, Times News papers Ltd, Bladet, Lingens and Castells).1 As consistently explained by these cases not only the press for example has the task of imparting information and ideas, rather the public also have the right to receive them.2 But this doesn’t mean that the press is absolutely free to impart any information and in any way as it likes because there are duties and responsibilities that the press or Medias have to satisfy. As it could be seen from the above cases, the press is under obligation not to overstep the bounders set like national security and individual reputation. In particular, as explained in the Times Newspaper Ltd case, the press is under the duty to act in accordance with the principles of responsible journalism to make its information accurate and reliable.3 Art 10 of the ECHR doesn’t guarantee absolutely unlimited freedom of expression for the press even though the matter may be of public importance. It means that it has to act in accordance with its duties and responsibilities pursuant to Art 10(2) ECHR. Here, as the role played by the press i.e. to provide forum for debate on public issues is so important in a democratic society, then the assessment of limitations on the press will go under strict standard. In the Bladet case for example, the ECtHR stated that “the court is mindful of the fact that journalistic freedom also covers possible recourse to a degree of exaggeration, or 1

Cases Guardian and Observer, Times News papers Ltd, Bladet, Lingens and Castells, p. 5, 11,and (P. 869, 861 and 875, Dorsen) respectively 2 Ibid,p.5, 11, and from Dorsen .(P. 869, 861 and 875) respectively 3 Times Newspapers Ltd case, p. 12

even provocation.”4 The press is also protected under the principle of permissible criticism and this protection is wider in case of political issues to ensure the “public watch dog” role of the press. For instance in the Lingenes case, the court said that “freedom of the press affords the public one of the best means of discovering and forming an opinion of ideas and attitudes of Political leaders and freedom of political debate is at the very core of the concept of democratic society”5 and the court also stated that in such political cases the limits of acceptable criticism are wider. The freedom of expression cases involving the press then will result in a tension between the interest of the public in open debate on public matters provided by the press on one hand and national security interests and individual rights on the other hand. In this regard, the court has decided cases by weighing these conflicting interests on case by case basis. The Bladet case is notable in this regard as the court has weighed the two interests and finally decided that the vital public interest in ensuring an informed public debate outweighed the protection of individual rights in the case. Here, the principle is that, as explained in the Times Newspapers Ltd case, “particularly strong reasons must be provided for any measure limiting access to information which the public has the right to receive.” On the other hand in the case Guardian and Observer on the first period judgment (1986-1987), the court considering particular circumstances of the case, declared that the “information is damaging which might be detrimental to the service” and it then decided that such interest prevails over open public debate interest. The circumstance of perishability of news was also considered in the cases Guardian and Observer and Times News papers Ltd in assessing the responsibilities and goodfaith of the press. In the former case, the court said that prior restraint on press calls for strict scrutiny on the part of the court in case perishable news are involved as delay in publication, even for short period of time, may effectively deprive it of all its value and interest.6 Generally, the court uniformly declared that safeguards guaranteed to the press are particularly important as the press plays significant role in imparting public issues for debate and it also 4

Bladet case Bladet case 6 Guardian and Observer case, p. 6 5

imposed duties and responsibilities on the press to protect pressing public interests like national security and reputation of individuals and to oblige the press to provide accurate and reliable information for the public and to impart information and ideas in good faith.