The International Forum for Responsible Media Blog

Tag: Strasbourg Observers (Page 7 of 7)

Case Law, Strasbourg: Ricci v Italy, Less Restrictive Alternatives in Exercising Freedom of Expression? – Stijn Smet

StrisciaOn 8 October 2013, the European Court of Human Rights released its judgment in the case of Ricci v. Italy [in french only] The case concerned a broadcast by the satirical television programme Striscia la notizia (on Canale 5), which aired an intercepted episode of another television programme, normally broadcast on the public network RAI. The applicant in Ricci was the producer of the programme. Continue reading

Treating a news portal as publisher of users’ comment may have far-reaching consequences for online freedom of expression – Dirk Voorhoof

dvoorhoofThe European Court of Human Rights’ judgment of 10 October 2013 in Delfi AS v. Estonia has caused a lot of controversy in the world of online media, news portals, internet-groups and freedom of expression websites. Especially the criticism by Article 19, Index on Censorship and The Guardian (amongst others, also here, here, here and here) initiated a robust debate. Continue reading

Case Law, Strasbourg: Belpietro v. Italy, Newspaper Editor Criminally Liable for Senator’s Op-Ed, But Prison Sentence Violated Article 10 – Ronan Ó Fathaigh and Dirk Voorhoof

maurizio-belpietroNine years ago, in its landmark Cumpănă and Mazăre v. Romania judgment, a unanimous Grand Chamber laid down a rare absolute rule that prison sentences for defamation are never justified under Article 10 where the defamatory statements concern a matter of public interest. This rule against prison sentences included pardoned, suspended, or conditional sentences, effectively removing from European legislatures and courts the ability to impose such sentences. Continue reading

Case Law, Strasbourg: Animal Defenders v UK, ban on political advertising does not violate Art 10 – Ronan Ó Fathaigh

animaldefendersOn Monday 22 April 2013, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Human Rights held, by nine votes to eight, that the UK’s ban on political advertising on television did not violate Article 10. The majority opinion in Animal Defenders International v. the United Kingdom departed substantially from the Court’s previous case law on political advertising, and introduced a new method for reviewing the proportionality of such blanket-bans. Continue reading

Newer posts »

© 2026 Inforrm's Blog

Theme by Anders NorénUp ↑