The Criteria for Distinguishing the Permission of Freedom of Expression from the Prohibition of Committing Crimes against the Dignity of Persons from the Point of View of the European Court of Human Rights.

Document Type : Research Paper

Author

Assistant Prof, Department of Law, Faculty of Theology,Meybod University, Meybod, Iran

Abstract

Although Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights recognizes the right to freedom of expression for the citizens of the contracting states, it considers he use of this right subject to observance of formalities,one of which is respect for the spiritual dignity of others.The present reseach paper,,which was written in a descriptive-analytical method and using library and internet sources,deals with the main question that what the most important criteria are for distinguishing between the permission of freedom of speech and the prohibition of committing crimes against the spiritual dignity of individuals.The findings of the research show that the European Court of Human Rights has identified four criteria:the position of the audience,the nature and purpose of the statements,the ability to verify the statements,and the behavior and speech of the audience.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

Barghi, Mohammadmehdi (2023). Positive Obligations of Governments to Protect the Rights of Citizens in the European Court of Human Rights Interpretation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, State Studies, Issue 34, Pages 35-57 (In Persian).
Betten, Lammy (2023), The Human Rights Act 1998 - What it Means: The Incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into the Legal Order of the United Kingdom, Leiden: Brill.
Council of Europe (2022), Guide on Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, https://ks.echr.coe.int.
Crawshaw, Ralph, Holmstrom, Leif (2006), Essential Cases on Human Rights for the Police: Reviews and Summaries of International Cases, Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Delmas-Marty, Mireille (2021), The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights: International Protection Versus National Restrictions, Leiden: Brill.
Guillen-Nieto, Victoria (2023), Hate Speech: Linguistic Perspectives, Berlin: De Gruyter.
Hallberg, Pekka, Virkkunen, Janne (2017), Freedom of Speech and Information in Global Perspective, London: Palgrave Macmillan Us.
Hatampouri, Hamze (2018). John Stuart Mill; Act or Rule Utilitarianism, Wisdom and Philosophy, Issue 55, Pages 125-153 (In Persian).
Janis, Mark, Kay, Richard, Bradley, Anthony (2008), European Human Rights Law: Text and Materials, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jones, Mariette (2024), Defamation and the Right to Freedom of Speech: The UK in Comparative Perspective, Milton Park: Taylor & Francis.
Lan Yurttagul, Hava Charlotte (2021), Whistleblower Protection by the Council of Europe, the European Court of Human Rights and the European Union: An Emerging Consensus, New York: Springer International Publishing.
Malekafzali Ardakani, Mojtaba,Karami, Bahareh (2023). A Researching on the Psycholigical Condition of the Perpetrator of the Crime of Defamation, Studies of Islamic Jurisprudence and Basis of Law, Issue 47, Pages 271-294 (In Persian).
McGonagle, Tarlach, Andreotti, Onur (2016), Freedom of Expression and Defamation, Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Mirmohammadsadeghi, Hosein (2013). Offences Against the Person, 11th Edition, Tehran: Mizan (In Persian).
Mowbray, Alastair (2012), Cases, Materials, and Commentary on the European Convention on Human Rights, Oxford: OUP Oxford.
Nussberger, Angelija (2020), The European Court of Human Rights, Oxford: OUP Oxford.
Rodrigues, Andre Alfar (2024), The Whistleblower Protection Regime, Lisbon: Almedina.
Sharma, Mohit, Kumar, Sujit, Goel, Priya (2020), IAS Mains Paper 4 Ethics Integrity & Aptitude 2021, Delhi: Arihant Publications India limited.
Spielmann, Dean, Cariolou, Leto (2011), The Right to Protection of Reputation under the European Convention on Human Rights, In Book: Essays in Honour of Christos L.Rozakis, Bruxelles: Bruylant.
Sunshine, Spencer (2024), Neo-Nazi Terrorism and Countercultural Fascism, Milton Park: Taylor & Francis.
Zysset, Alain (2016), The ECHR and Human Rights Theory: Reconciling the Moral and the Political Conceptions, Milton Park: Taylor & Francis.
Dalban v. Romania, Appl. No. 28114/95, 28 September 1999
De Haes and Gijsels v. Belgium, Appl. No. 19983/92, 24 February 1997
Handyside v. the United Kingdom, Appl. No. 5493/72, 7 December 1976
Jersild v. Denmark, Appl. No. 15890/89, 23 September 1994
Lingens v. Austria, Appl. No. 9815/82, 8 July 1986
Lopes Gomes da Silva v. Portugal, Appl. No. 37698/97, 28 September 2000
Mediengruppe Osterreich GmbH v. Austria, Appl. No. 37713/18, 26 April 2022
Oberschlick v. Austrai, Appl. No. 20834/92, 1 July 1997
Thorgeir Thorgeirson v. Iceland, Appl. No. 13778/88, 25 June 1992
Criminal Law Research
Volume 15, Issue 1 - Serial Number 29
Papers
July 2024
Pages 21-32

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics