The concept of the figure of defamation through the mass media
The concept of the figure of defamation through the mass media
The Court of Human Rights has consistently recognized the importance of freedom of expression and the media, which is one of the initial conditions for the proper functioning of democracy. It is necessary to study the European Court of Human Rights’ jurisprudence for a complete framework of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, guaranteeing this freedom. European jurisprudence sets a limit that the state can not cross.
The ECHR has paid attention to the freedom of journalists and other entities and the access of private individuals to public radio and television services, setting the conditions, austerity measures, and limits of this freedom of expression justifying the needs of democracy. In addition to the release of the face of every person to have access to and receive information and ideas regarding cultural pluralism. Freedom of expression includes accepting or imparting knowledge or ideas without public authorities’ interference and is an essential element of a democratic society. Democracy is inseparable from pluralism and freedom of thought.
Before analyzing this right provided for in Article 10 2 2 of the Convention, we must clarify that freedom of communication and the receipt of information and ideas apply not only to information or opinions considered offensive but also to those stolen even for those who annoy, shock or disturb. One of the main features of democracy is the opportunity it offers to solve problems through dialogue and without resorting to violence, even when these problems may bother the country.
Democracy is, in fact, “nourished” by freedom of expression, provided that such release is not a call for violence, a violent popular uprising, or any other form of rejection or denial of democratic principles or rather the democratic values and ideals which have been defined on Human Rights.
In general, on the observance of the principles which constitute the foundation of democracy, I would mention the freedom of religious propaganda of the Court of Human Rights itself, in the case of Refah Partisi, Erbakan, Kazan, and Tekdal c. Turkey (n ° 41340/98 &41342-4 / 98), the decision of 31 July 2001. The Court has expressly rejected the compatibility of the conventions’ values with a specific party and political project with a tendency to reconfirm the religious-political values of Shari and reconstruct the same constitutional principles on discrimination about religious credibility.
Therefore, the European Court has condemned a party that had manifested a religious and intolerant idea by showing intentionally the use of force to seize power and maintain it, to impose the application of Islamic (Sharia) law by denying the values of democracy, fundamental human rights, and civil peace.
The European Court of Justice has paid particular attention to protecting translators and protagonists of freedom of expression, which journalists and authors of newspapers and books, adding the importance of “protection of journalistic source and freedom of the press.” But in everyone’s face, private and information professionals, the European Court has always viewed with great suspicion the convictions of national courts for defamation, saying that! … it needs to avoid losing the courage of citizens, in the face of fear of criminal sanctions. To be pronounced about problems of public interest”.The concept of the figure of defamation through the mass media
There are three conditions required by Article 10 of the Convention to justify the restriction of state intervention, where the latter must be “Provided by law,” must pursue a legitimate aim, such as, “Protection of the dignity or rights of to others, it must be necessary for a democratic society. ” The latter condition has been assessed on a case-by-case basis by the European Court to determine whether the intervention was “proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued” and whether the national authorities’ reasons to justify it appeared to be “reasonable and sufficient.”
The word “necessary” within the meaning of Article 10, second paragraph, of the Convention implies the existence of a “Social Need for Oppression.” States enjoy individual discretionary freedom to judge whether such a need exists. These dimensions are always under the European Court’s jurisdiction, both about national law and when these decisions stem from an independent tribunal per se. So it is up to the European Court to decide whether a “coercive measure” imposed by the nation-state complies with freedom of expression based on the ECHR.
