In Defence of Offence: Freedom of Expression, Offensive Speech and, the Approach of the European Court of Human Rights

• Author: Aoife O'Reilly
• Position: LLB (Law and Political Science) (Dubl), LLM (LSE), Graduate Diploma in Law (UHUD) Candidate
• Pages: 234-260

© 2016 Aoife O’Reilly and Dublin University Law Society

IN DEFENCE OF OFFENCE:

FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION,OFFENSIVE SPEECH,

AND THE APPROACH OF THE

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

AOIFE O’REILLY*

Introduction

Thedebateonfreespeechandtherighttogiveoffencehasbeenreignited

inrecenttimes,dueinnosmallparttotwoincidentsinterpretedasegregious

attacksona mostreveredcivilliberty.Thefirst(andinhindsightmore

trivial)incidentwas a cyber-attackonSonyPictures,allegedlyinresponse

totheplannedreleaseofTheInterview, a comedyabout afictionalCIA

missiontoassassinateNorthKoreanDictatorKimJong-un.Theattackled

totheleakingofinternalemailsandupcomingmovies,withactsofviolence

threatenedifthefilmwasreleased.1Thesecondwasthekillingof12people

intheofficesofFrenchsatiricalmagazineCharlieHebdo, apparently

motivatedbyrevengeforitspublicationofcartoonssatirisingtheProphet

Mohammad.2Inbothcases,thecontentexpressedwasarguablydistasteful,

andgiventhereactiontotheDanishcartoonscandalin2005,therecanbe

nodoubtthattheFrenchpublicationoffendedMuslimsensibilities.3The

overwhelmingresponsetobothincidentswas a renewedandvigorous

supportforfreespeech.However,therighttooffensiveexpressionhas

neverbeenbeyondrestrictioninEurope,andtheEuropeanCourtofHuman

Rights(ECtHR)hasoftenbalkedattheprospectofoverturningstate

determinationsthatparticularspeechistoooffensive.

*LLB (Law and Political Science) (Dubl), LLM (LSE), Graduate Diploma inLaw(UHUD)

Candidate. The author would like to thank Dr Andrew Scott for his helpful comments on an

earlier draft of this article.

1Keith Stuart, “Sony CEO calls Interview hack the most “vicious” attack in recent history,”

The Guardian, 6 January 2015 ceo-

interview-hack-vicious-attack> (visited 1 May 2015).

2Kim Willsher, Jon Henley, Julian Borger, Sandra Laville and Helen Davidson, “Hunt for

Charlie Hebdo suspects continues in rural France” The Guardian, 9 January 2015

(visited

1 May 2015).

3 Ian Cram, “The Danish Cartoons, Offensive Expression, and Democratic Legitimacy” in Ivan

Hare and James Weinstein ed., Extreme Speech and Democracy (OUP 2009), at 311-12.

2016] In Defence of Offence

235

Thisarticleexplores a numberofissuesthatarisewithoffensivespeech,

focusingonECtHRjurisprudence.Section 1examinesthetraditional

justificationsforfreedomofexpressionandtheextenttowhichtheysupport

theprotectionofoffensivespeech.Section 2 thenmovestoinvestigatethe

approachoftheECtHRtosuchspeech,analysinginparticularthestrong

rhetoricespousedontheapparentright“toshock,offendanddisturb.”

GiventherobustprotectionaffordedbytheCourttoreligioussensitivities,

Section 3 considerswhetheritisappropriatetoinsulatereligiousfeelings

fromoffenceandprobesthecaselawinthisarea.Section 4 contemplates

themannerinwhichoffence-basedregulationprivilegesmembersofthe

majoritycultureinsociety,beforeSection 5 concludeswithanappraisalof

argumentsthatsuchregulationshouldactuallyprotectvulnerablecultural

minoritiesfrombeingsubjectedtooffensivespeech.

I. Justifications for Free Speech

Freedomofexpressionisoneofthepillarsofdemocracy,affordedan

enviablepositionon a particularlyhighpedestalwithinmanyfundamental

rightsframeworks.TheFirstAmendmenttotheUSConstitution,for

example,providesverystrongprotectionforspeech,withtheUSSupreme

Courtexplicitlystatingthatonlyspeechthat“isdirectedtoincitingor

producingimminentlawlessactionandislikelytoinciteorproducesuch

action”canbecurtailed.4TheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPolitical

Rightsalsoprovidesrobustfreespeechguarantees,accordingindividuals

thefreedom“toseek,receiveandimpartinformationandideasofall

kinds.”5Thisrightissubjectonlytorestrictionsdeemednecessarytoensure

respectfortherightsandreputationsofothersandforprotectingnational

security,publicorderandpublichealthormorals,6andwherethespeech

canbeconsideredpropagandaforwaror“advocacyofnational,racialor

religioushatredthatconstitutesincitementtodiscrimination,hostilityor

violence.”7

WhiletheEuropeanConventionpermitstherestrictionoffreespeech

underArticle10,intheoryanyinterference mustbe“convincingly

established”andbasedon“relevantandsufficient”grounds.8Freedomof

expressionenjoysrobustrespectduetoassumptionsaboutitsmanyutilities.

4Brandenburg v Ohio 395 US 444 (1969), at 448.

5 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 19(2)

6 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 19(3)

7 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 20

8Pedersen and Baadsgaard v Denmark (2006) 42 EHRR 24