Freedom of Expression and its Restrictions in Europe
On the Applicability of Article 17 of the European Convention of Human Rights to Disinformation (Fake News)
Abstract
Freedom of expression is not an absolute right and has limitations set up by international human rights treaties. The general clause of its limitation falls within the scope of the ‘rights of others’ as provided, for instance, in the European Convention of Human Rights. The role of the courts is to balance freedom of expression and the rights of others, performing a three-step test of legality, necessity, and proportionality of any restriction. However, according to the well-established case law of the European Court of Human Rights, some forms of expression do not enjoy protection under free speech clauses. Therefore, the European Court of Human Rights dismisses claims as manifestly inadmissible under Article 17. This ‘abuse’ clause is invoked when a particular claim is based on undermining the democratic values of a liberal state. The purpose of the abuse clause is to preserve the self-sustainability of the Convention. This paper aims to analyze whether fake news and disinformation campaigns fall under the scope of Article 17.
References
Dalkir, K. and Katz, R. (2020). Navigating Fake News, Alternative Facts, and Misinformation in a Post-Truth World. IGI Global Disseminator of Knowledge.
Drooghenbroeck, S.V. (2000) ‘L’article 17 de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme: incertain et inutile?’ In Dumont, H. et al. (eds.) Pas de liberté pour les ennemis de la liberté? Brussels.
Fathaigh, R. (2019) Brzeziński v. Poland: Fine over ‘ false’ information during election campaign violated Article 10 [Online]. Available at: https://strasbourgobservers.com/2019/08/08/brzezinski-v-poland-fine-over-false-information-duringelection-campaign-violated-article-10/. (Accessed: 27 August 2021).
Ilieva, M.S. (2021) Behar and Budinova v. Bulgaria: The Rights of Others in Cases of Othering – Anti-victim bias in ECHR hate speech law [Online]. Available at: https://strasbourgobservers.com/2021/04/15/behar-and-budinova-v-bulgaria-the-rightsof-others-in-cases-of-othering-anti-victim-bias-in-echr-hate-speech-law/ (Accessed: 3 December 2021).
Mueller, R. (2019) Report On the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election (Vols. 1-2). Washington, DC: Academic Press.
Nielsen, G. (2020) Populism, Fake News, and the Flight From Democracy.
Peters, M.A., Rider, S., Hyvönen, M., Besley, T. (eds.) (2018) Post truth, fake news: Viral modernity and higher education. Singapore: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-981-10-8013-5.
Shattock, E. (2021) Should the ECtHR Invoke Article 17 for Disinformation Cases [Online]. Available at: https://www.ejiltalk.org/should-the-ecthr-invoke-article-17for-disinformation-cases/ (Accessed: 27 August 2021).
Tulkens, F. (2012) When to say is to do, Freedom of expression and hate speech in the case-law of the European Human Rights [Online]. Available at: https://www.ejtn.eu/Documents/About%20EJTN/Independent%20Seminars/TULKENS_Francoise_Presentation_When_to_Say_is_To_Do_Freedom_of_Expression_and_Hate_Speech_in_the_Case_Law_of_the_ECtHR_October_2012.pdf, p. 4. (Accessed: 27 August 2021).
Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights
Handyside v. the United Kingdom, application no. 5493/72, 1976.
Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom, application no. 13585/88, 1990.
Prager and Oberschlick v. Austria, application no. 15974/90, 1995.
Gündüz v. Turkey, application no. 35071/97, 2004.
Garaudy v. France, application no. 64496/17, 2003.
Perinçek v. Switzerland, Grand Chamber, application no. 27510/08, 2015.
Norwood v. the United Kingdom, application no. 23131/03, 2004.
Feret v. Belgium, application no. 15615/07, 2009.
Budinova and Chaprazov v. Bulgaria, application no. 12567/13, 2021.
Miroļubovs and Others v. Latvia, application no. 798/05, 2009.
S.A.S. v. France, Grand Chamber, application no. 43835/11, 2014.
Ždanoka v. Latvia, Grand Chamber, application no. 58278/00, 2006.
Communist Party of Germany (KPD) v. Germany, The European Commission of Human Rights, application no. 250/57, 1957.
Lilliendahl v. Iceland, application no. 29297/18, 2020.
Behar and Gutman v. Bulgaria, application no. 29335/13, 2021.
Other
Guide on Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, European Court of Human Rights, December 2020 [Online]. Available at: https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/guide_art_10_eng.pdf.
Guide on Article 17 of the European Convention on Human Rights, European Court of Human Rights, August 2020 [Online]. Available at: https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_Art_17_ENG.pdf (Accessed 27 August 2021) Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European economic and social committee and the Committee of the regions tackling online disinformation: a European approach. com/2018/236 final. https://eur-lex. europa.eu/legal-content/en/txt/?uri=celex%3a52018dc0236.
Information Disorder: Toward an interdisciplinary framework for research and policy making, Council of Europe, 2017.
A multi-dimensional approach to disinformation, Report of the independent High level group on fake news and online disinformation, European Union, 2018. https://futurefreespeech.com/garaudy-v-france/.
https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/ecthr-perincek-v-switzerland-no-2751008–2013/.
https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/gunduz-v-turkey/.
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/convention_eng.pdf.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/fake-news.
