Neapykantos kurstymas Europos Žmogaus Teisių Teismo jurisprudencija
Europos Žmogaus Teisių ir Pagrindinių Laisvių apsaugos konvencijos 10 str. 10 straipsnis 1. Kiekvienas turi teisę laisvai reikšti savo mintis ir įsitikinimus. Tai teisė laisvai laikytis savo nuomonės, gauti bei skleisti informaciją ir idėjas, valdžios pareigūnų netrukdomam ir nepaisant valstybės sienų. Šis straipsnis neturi trukdyti valstybėms kelti reikalavimą licenzijuoti radijo, televizijos ar kino įstaigas.
Europos Žmogaus Teisių ir Pagrindinių Laisvių apsaugos konvencijos 10 str. 10 straipsnis. 2. Naudojimasis šiomis laisvėmis, kadangi tai susiję su pareigomis bei atsakomybe, gali būti sąlygojamas tokių formalumų, sąlygų, apribojimų ar bausmių, kurias numato įstatymas ir kurios demokratinėje visuomenėje būtinos valstybės saugumo, teritorinio vientisumo ar viešosios tvarkos interesams, siekiant užkirsti kelią teisės pažeidimams ir nusikaltimams, žmonių sveikatai bei moralei, taip pat kitų asmenų orumui ar teisėms apsaugoti, užkirsti kelią konfidencialios informacijos atskleidimui ar teisminės valdžios autoritetui ir nešališkumui garantuoti.
Neapykantos kurstymas (Istorija) Debs v. United States, 249 US 211 (1919) Socialistų partijos penkis kartus kandidatas Į JAV prezidento postą Eugene Debs pasakė kalbą smerkiančią jaunuolių verbavimą į I pasaulinį karą. Nubaustas 10 metų laisvės atėmimu ir iki gyvos galvos atimtos politinės teisės. Teisės aktas, kuriuo remtasi 1917 m. Espionage Act – kuris patriotinėje karo atmosferoje saugojo JAV valdžios pastangas rinkti karius ir neleisti nelojalių pareiškimų karo atžvilgiu.
Neapykantos kurstymas (Istorija) Debs v. United States, 249 US 211 (1919 JAV AT palaikė žemesnių teismų sprendimą. Šis JAV AT sprendimas įėjo į JAV teisingumo istoriją kaip bad tendency testas – leidžiantis riboti žodžio laisvę tiesiog egzistuojant tendencijai (galimybei) sukelti socialinę žalą. Priežastinis ryšys – saviraiškos laisvė – sukeltos blogos (kažkam) tendencijos. JAV AT argumentavo, kad Debs žodžiai galėjo turėti neigiamą efektą savanorių rinkimo tarnyboms Šis bad tendency testas vėliau buvo daug kartų naudotas siekiant slopinti pacifistines, socialistines, komunistines ir kitokias ideologines tendencijas
Neapykantos kurstymas Ar egzistuoja vieningas hate speech standartas JAV, Europai, kitur? Kokia riba tarp saugomos ir nesaugomos žodžio laisvės JAV, Europoje, kitur? Kas yra šiose bylose proporcingumo analizė?
Neapykantos kurstymas (Istorija) Nors Bad tendency testas jau daug metų JAV AT jurisprudencijoje yra panaikintas, bet jis atgimė EŽTT jurisprudencijoje XXI amžiuje bylose Feret v. Belgium ir Le Pen v. France.
Neapykantos kurstymas Feret v. Belgium, 2009, liepos 16 d., Bylos Nr. 15615/07 (EŽTT teisėjų sekcijos sprendimas minimalia dauguma 4/3) Jean-Marie Le Pen v. France, 2010 Balnadžio 20 d., Bylos Nr. 18788/09 N.B. Abu giminingų ultra dešiniųjų partijų Front National vadovai ir abu nuteisti už antislamiškų antiimigrantiškų nuotaikų skatinimą
Neapykantos kurstymas CASE OF BALSYTĖ-LIDEIKIENĖ v. LITHUANIA (Application no. 72596/01) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 4 November 2008
Neapykantos kurstymas BALSYTĖ-LIDEIKIENĖ v. LITHUANIA THE FACTS I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 7. The applicant, Mrs Danutė Balsytė-Lideikienė, is a Lithuanian national, who was born in 1947. At present she lives in Lithuania. 8. The applicant is the founder and owner of a publishing company Metskaitliai. Since 1995 the company has published Lithuanian calendar (Lietuvio kalendorius), a yearly calendar with notes by the applicant and other contributors describing various historic dates from the perspective of its authors. The calendar could be purchased in bookstores. It was distributed in Lithuania and among Lithuanian immigrants living abroad. 9. On 4 January 2000 a Member of the Lithuanian Parliament (Seimas) distributed a public announcement, stating that the texts published in Lithuanian calendar 2000 insulted persons of Polish, Russian and Jewish origin. The relevant parts of Lithuanian calendar read as follows: [First page of the calendar]: Lietuva – the land of the Lithuanians, as each footprint here bears traces of our Nation's blood 15 February: In 1998, on the eve of the 80th anniversary of the restoration of the independence of Lithuania, a Pole insidiously killed nine Lithuanians living in Širvintų district's Draučių village – all the inhabitants of the village were shot. (...) The Nation was informed about the tragedy after thirty six hours – during this time Lithuanian [high society] were celebrating and enjoying themselves, hugged the Polish president, put flowers [on the monuments] to Pilsudski's army, drank and danced their ghastly dance on the freshly spilled blood of Lithuanians whose whole village had been murdered.
Neapykantos kurstymas BALSYTĖ-LIDEIKIENĖ v. LITHUANIA B. The Court's assessment 70. The Court finds it clear, and this has not been disputed, that there has been an interference with the applicant's freedom of expression on account of the administrative penalty and the confiscation of the publication, which were applied under Articles 301 and 21412 of the Code on Administrative Law Offences. 71. The above-mentioned interference contravened Article 10 of the Convention unless it was prescribed by law, pursued one or more of the legitimate aims referred to in paragraph 2 of Article 10 and was necessary in a democratic society for achieving such aim or aims. The Court will examine each of these criteria in turn.
Neapykantos kurstymas BALSYTĖ-LIDEIKIENĖ v. LITHUANIA 1. Prescribed by law 72. The applicant and the Government did not question that the interference was in accordance with the law. Taking into consideration that the interference was prescribed by Articles 301 and 21412 of the Code on Administrative Law Offences, the Court sees no reason to depart from the position of the parties.
Neapykantos kurstymas BALSYTĖ-LIDEIKIENĖ v. LITHUANIA 2. Legitimate aim 73. The Court agrees with the Government's submissions that the punishment imposed aimed to protect the values laid out in Article 10 § 2 of the Convention, in particular the reputation and rights of the ethnic groups living in Lithuania and referred to in Lithuanian calendar 2000. It remains to be determined whether the interference was necessary in a democratic society.
Neapykantos kurstymas BALSYTĖ-LIDEIKIENĖ v. LITHUANIA 3. Necessary in a democratic society 74. According to the Court's well-established case-law, freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and one of the basic conditions for its progress and for each individual's self-fulfilment (see, among other authorities, Lingens v. Austria, judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 103, p. 26, § 41). Subject to paragraph 2 of Article 10, it is applicable not only to information or ideas that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb. Such are the demands of pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no democratic society (see Jersild v. Denmark, judgment of 23 September 1994, Series A no. 298, pp. 23-24, § 31 and Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, § 87, ECHR 2005- II).
Neapykantos kurstymas BALSYTĖ-LIDEIKIENĖ v. LITHUANIA 75. The Court also acknowledges that, as set forth in Article 10, freedom of expression is subject to exceptions, which must, however, be construed strictly, and the need for any restrictions must be established convincingly (see Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 49, Series A no. 24; Lingens, cited above, § 41; Jersild v. Denmark, cited above, § 37; Piermont v. France, 27 April 1995, § 26, Series A no. 314; Lehideux and Isorni v. France, 23 September 1998, § 55, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998- VII; Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 45, ECHR 1999-I; Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway [GC], no. 23118/93, § 43, ECHR 1999-VIII).
Neapykantos kurstymas BALSYTĖ-LIDEIKIENĖ v. LITHUANIA 76. The adjective necessary, within the meaning of Article 10 § 2, implies the existence of a pressing social need. The Court recognises that the Contracting States have a certain margin of appreciation in assessing whether such a need exists, but it goes hand in hand with a European supervision, embracing both the legislation and the decisions applying it, even those given by an independent court. The Court is therefore empowered to give the final ruling on whether a restriction or penalty is reconcilable with freedom of expression as protected by Article 10 (see Lingens, cited above, p. 25, § 39, and Janowski v. Poland [GC], no. 25716/94, § 30, ECHR 1999-I).
Neapykantos kurstymas BALSYTĖ-LIDEIKIENĖ v. LITHUANIA margin of appreciation
Neapykantos kurstymas BALSYTĖ-LIDEIKIENĖ v. LITHUANIA 77. In exercising its supervisory jurisdiction, the Court must look at the impugned interference in the light of the case as a whole, including the content of the remarks held against the applicant and the context in which she made them. In particular, it must determine whether the interference in issue was proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued and whether the reasons adduced by the national authorities to justify it were relevant and sufficient (see The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), judgment of 26 April 1979, Series A no. 30, p. 38, § 62; Lingens, cited above, pp. 25-26, § 40; Barfod v. Denmark, judgment of 22 February 1989, Series A no. 149, p. 12, § 28; Janowski, cited above; and News Verlags GmbH & CoKG v. Austria, no. 31457/96, § 52, ECHR 2000- I). In doing so, the Court has to satisfy itself that the national authorities applied standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10 and, moreover, that they based themselves on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts (see Jersild, cited above, § 31).
Neapykantos kurstymas BALSYTĖ-LIDEIKIENĖ v. LITHUANIA (a) Pressing social need 78. Turning to the facts of the present case, the Court notes that the applicant was sanctioned on the basis of the statements she had made in her capacity as an editor and publisher. Regarding the context in which Lithuanian calendar 2000 was published, the Court has particular regard to the general situation of the Republic of Lithuania. The Court takes into account the Government's explanation as to the context of the case that after the re-establishment of the independence of the Republic of Lithuania on 11 March 1990 the questions of territorial integrity and national minorities were sensitive. The Court also notes that the publication received negative reactions from the diplomatic representations of the Republic of Poland, the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus. In this regard the Court also notes the obligations of the Republic of Lithuania under international law, namely, to prohibit any advocacy of national hatred and to take measures to protect persons who may be subject to such threats as a result of their ethnic identity (see 40-44 above).
Neapykantos kurstymas BALSYTĖ-LIDEIKIENĖ v. LITHUANIA 79. The Court now turns to the question of the specific language the applicant used in Lithuanian calendar 2000. The applicant expressed aggressive nationalism and ethnocentrism (The Lithuanian nation will only survive by being a nationalist nation – no other way exists!), repeatedly referred to the Jews as perpetrators of war crimes and genocide against the Lithuanians (The soviet occupying power, with the help of... many Jews... carried out the genocide and colonisation of the Lithuanian nation, Through the blood of our ancestors to the worldwide community of the Jews,... executions against the Lithuanians and the Lithuanian nation, carrying out pro-Jewish politics). She also used the same language with reference to the Poles (In 1944... the Polish Krajova Army killed 12 Lithuanians for the sole reason that they were Lithuanians, In 1944... the Polish Krajova Army brutally killed more than a hundred Lithuanians... the Poles, in war conditions, carried out ethnic cleansing. In the whole territory of Lithuania [the members of the Krajova Army] killed about 1 000, and in the ethnic Lithuanian lands about 3 000 more innocent people for the sole reason that they were Lithuanians. The... events should be regarded as the genocide of the Lithuanian nation...). The impugned passages contained statements inciting hatred against the Poles and the Jews. The Court considers that these statements were capable of giving the Lithuanian authorities cause for serious concern.
Neapykantos kurstymas BALSYTĖ-LIDEIKIENĖ v. LITHUANIA 80. In considering the approach of the domestic courts when deciding whether a pressing social need indeed existed and the reasons the authorities adduced to justify the interference, the Court observes that the Vilnius City Second District Court appointed experts, who provided conclusions as to the gravity of the applicant's statements and the danger they posed to society. The courts agreed with the conclusion of the experts that a biased and one-sided portrayal of relations among nations hindered the consolidation of civil society and promoted national hatred. The national courts noted the negative reaction which the publication received from a certain part of Lithuanian society and some foreign embassies. They also took into consideration the experts' conclusions that the applicant's statements could be attributed to the ideology of extreme nationalism, which promoted national hatred, xenophobia and territorial claims. Having regard to the margin of appreciation left to the Contracting States in such circumstances, the Court considers that the domestic authorities, in the circumstances of the case, did not overstep their margin of appreciation when they considered that there was a pressing social need to take measures against the applicant.
Neapykantos kurstymas BALSYTĖ-LIDEIKIENĖ v. LITHUANIA 84. In the instant case, the Court notes that the confiscation measure imposed on the applicant could be considered relatively serious. However, the applicant did not have a fine imposed on her, which is the punishment Article 21412 of the Code on Administrative Law Offences stipulated for the acts she had committed. The domestic courts took into account that the applicant had been negligent and had not acted deliberately, that it was her first administrative offence, as well as the fact that she was handicapped, and instead imposed a warning under Article 301 of the Code on Administrative Law Offences, which is the mildest administrative punishment available.
Neapykantos kurstymas BALSYTĖ-LIDEIKIENĖ v. LITHUANIA 85. Having regard to the foregoing, the Court considers that the applicant's punishment was not disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and that the reasons advanced by the domestic courts were sufficient and relevant to justify such interference. The interference with the applicant's right to freedom of expression could thus reasonably be considered necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the reputation or rights of others within the meaning of Article 10 § 2 of the Convention.
Feret v. Belgium Bylos faktinės aplinkybės: P.Feret gyvena Briuselyje. Jis yra politinės partijos National Front pirmininkas ir partijos interneto svetainės vyriausias redaktorius ir jos savininkas. Jis buvo Belgijos parlamento narys kai prokurorai pareikalavo sustabdyti jo parlamentinio imuniteto galiojimą.
Feret v. Belgium 8. A leaflet entitled "Mind your so you look! "Was the subject of several criminal complaints filed by citizens with the police Aywaille, Malmedy and Liege. The pamphlet advocated particularly to restore the priority of employment for the Belgians and Europeans repatriated immigrants, the principle of national preference and European homes convert political refugees in shelters for homeless Belgians, create fund separate social security for immigrants, stop the "politics of pseudo-integration" and stop suction pumps "social security for all." 9. Another leaflet, entitled "Program of the National Front," was also the subject of a complaint to the Public Prosecutor by the Center for Equal Opportunity and the Fight against Racism (the "Center"). The program advocated the repatriation of immigrants and said he wanted "to oppose the Islamization of Belgium", "stop the policy of pseudo-integration", "return the unemployed non-European", "book to Belgians and Europeans focus on welfare, "" stop fertilizing socio cultural associations support the integration of immigrants, "" reserve the right to asylum (..) to people of European origin actually prosecuted for political reasons "and" include the expulsion of illegal immigrants as a simple law enforcement. " In addition, the program called the hardest to regulate home-ownership property in Belgium, prevent the establishment of sustainable non-European families and the formation of ethnic ghettos in the country and "save our people from the risk posed conquering Islam. "
Feret v. Belgium A4. Airing the program of the National Front for the elections of June 1999 in its entirety and be maintained on the website of the National Front until October 14, 2001, the program put forward including the following: (...) - Reserved for Belgians and Europeans priority of social assistance; (...) - The granting of Belgian nationality through marriage is no longer possible; - Regulate more strictly the home ownership of real estate in Belgium. This scheme inspired by Swiss law, prevent the establishment of sustainable non-European families and the formation of ethnic ghettos in our territory. It is imperative to save our people from the risk posed by Islamic conqueror; - The State must cease to fatten the socio-cultural associations support the integration of immigrants; - The right of asylum should be restricted to a limited number of people, people of European origin actually prosecuted for political reasons; - Restrict access to non-contributory social assistance for foreigners outside the European Union and eliminate family allowances for children left at home; - Understand the expulsion (of illegal immigrants) as a simple law enforcement (...).
Feret v. Belgium 13. This text was followed by a booking form to the National Front containing the photograph of the applicant and the party slogan: "The Belgians and Europeans first! ".
Feret v. Belgium B. The procedure for lifting the parliamentary immunity of the applicant 19. All complaints regarding the various leaflets and the program of the National Front were joined. On June 6, 2002, the Brussels public prosecutor drew the attention of the Attorney General at the Court of Appeal in Brussels to request a report suggesting the lifting of parliamentary immunity of the applicant to allow the opening of criminal proceedings against him.
Feret v. Belgium "My office believes that Mr. Feret: - Deliberately playing with the feelings of a possibly xenophobic parts of the population disoriented in a society in crisis, especially to mark the difference with other elected officials; - Diffuse persistent comments that degrade and ridicule a community, in the case of non-European foreigners, blaming them arbitrarily and routinely anti-social behavior, giving them the necessary intent tort or nihilistic or by presenting inclusive as future offenders and welfare recipients, to promote the exclusion of foreigners from non-European social and political rights (...); - Accompany the writings of the National Front intentionally degrading caricatures, especially against people of African or Muslim countries considered; Not afraid to encourage them to exclude aliens from civil rights: including barriers to home ownership.
Feret v. Belgium "A1. Inciting to discrimination, segregation, hatred or violence against a group, community or their members, because of the alleged race, color, ancestry or national or ethnic origin of these or some of them (...);
Feret v. Belgium 29. 13 June 2004 the applicant was elected, on the one hand, the Council of the Brussels-Capital Region and on the other hand, the Parliament of the French Community. It was therefore covered by two new parliamentary immunity.
Feret v. Belgium 34. By a decision of 18 April 2006, the Court of Appeal of Brussels ordered the applicant to a sentence of 250 hours of work to be done in the integration of foreign nationals, with subsidiary imprisonment of ten months. It prohibits the applicant the right to be elected for a term of ten years. Finally, she ordered him to pay the provisional sum of 1 euro to each of the plaintiffs, reserving decision on the surplus.
Feret v. Belgium 29. The growing presence of racist and xenophobic discourse by the political parties of the extreme right in Belgium and the considerable success of these parties that use of a racist and xenophobic propaganda in ECRI raise the most concern. As mentioned above, immigrants, asylum seekers and refugees are the first targets of this propaganda, which does not fail to have - large scale - a negative impact on the perception that Aboriginal people can have this category of persons and their descendants living in Belgium. Generally, non-EU nationals living in Belgium are held responsible for the increase in unemployment, abuse of social security, crime and insecurity. These ideas are often disseminated, among others, through explicitly racist material. In addition, the various nationalist political party affiliations Belgian far-right help to break down the sometimes difficult relations between communities in Belgium, and to fuel a climate of tension that may, ultimately, encourage intolerance.
Feret v. Belgium 94. In particular, ECRI recommends that the Belgian authorities to ensure that all perpetrators of acts inspired by racism and xenophobia, including the dissemination of racist or xenophobic, are prosecuted, including political parties and organizations associated with it.
Feret v. Belgium 55. The Government further argues that the context of this case, with regard to electoral leaflets, is irrelevant. Like freedom of speech, freedom of political debate is undoubtedly not an absolute. The discussion of various political projects can not be claimed that if the projects in question are not intended to undermine democracy itself. As for the penalty imposed on the applicant, it would meet the criteria developed by the Court on the subject: the Belgian courts have exercised restraint in the use of criminal proceedings, in pronouncing a sentence of 250 hours of work in the sector the integration of foreign nationals and a measure of ineligibility for a period of ten years.
Feret v. Belgium Article 10 § 2 of the Convention leaves little room for restrictions on freedom of expression in political discourse or public policy issues (see Scharsach and News Verlagsgesellschaft v. Austria, No. 39394/98, § 30, ECHR 2003 XI). The Court emphasized that it is essential in a democratic society, to defend the freedom of political debate. It places the highest importance to freedom of expression in the context of political debate and considers that one can not restrict political speech without compelling reasons. Enable broad restrictions in individual cases undoubtedly affect the respect for freedom of expression in general in the State concerned (Feldek v. Slovakia, no 29032/95, § 83, ECHR 2001 VIII). However, freedom of political discussion is undoubtedly not an absolute. A Contracting State may subject to certain "restrictions" or "sanctions", but it is for the Court to give the final ruling on its compatibility with freedom of expression as enshrined in Article 10 (Castells v. Spain, April 23, 1992, § 46, Series A No. 236).
Feret v. Belgium 64. Tolerance and respect for the equal dignity of all human beings are the foundation of a democratic and pluralistic society. It follows that in principle it may be considered necessary in democratic societies to sanction or even prevent all forms of expression which spread, encourage, promote or justify hatred based on intolerance (including the religious intolerance), if one ensures that the "red", "conditions", "restrictions" or "sanctions" imposed be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued (in regard to hate speech and advocating the violence, see, mutatis mutandis, Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no 26682/95, § 62, ECHR 1999 IV, and in particular, Gündüz v. Turkey, no 35071/97, § 40, ECHR 2003 XI).
Feret v. Belgium 69. Regarding the substance of the alleged, it appears that tracts the message of these, and more based on the difference in culture between the Belgian and the affected communities, presented the latter as a criminogenic environment and interested by exploiting the benefits of living in Belgium and also attempted to ridicule. Such a discourse is inevitably likely to generate among the public, especially among the less informed public, feelings of contempt, rejection, or, for some, hatred of foreigners.
Feret v. Belgium 73. The Court found that the hate does not necessarily require the use of a particular act of violence or other criminal act. Violations committed by people insulting, ridiculing or defaming parts of the population and specific groups thereof or incitement to discrimination, as was the case here, are sufficient for the authorities emphasize the fight against racist speech against freedom of expression irresponsible and damaging to the dignity or the safety of those parties or groups of the population. Political speeches that incite hatred based on religious prejudice, ethnic or cultural- threatening social peace and political stability in democratic states.
Feret v. Belgium 75. The quality of Parliamentary applicant can not be considered as a mitigating liability. In this regard, the Court recalls that it is crucial that the politicians in their public speeches, avoid the dissemination of statements are likely to feed intolerance (Erbakan v. Turkey, no 59405/00, 6 July 2006, § 64). She believes that politicians should pay particular attention to the defense of democracy and its principles, as their ultimate objective is the taking of power. In this case, detailed proposal of the Attorney General at the Court of Appeal in Brussels, the House of Representatives said that the statements justifying the lifting of parliamentary immunity of the applicant. The Court considers that the incentive to the exclusion of aliens is a fundamental attack on human rights and should therefore justify special precautions for all, including politicians.
Feret v. Belgium 77. The Court recognizes that the political discourse requires a high degree of protection, which is recognized in the law of several states, including Belgium, through the parliamentary immunity and the prohibition of prosecution for opinions expressed in the speaker of Parliament. The Court does not dispute that the political parties have the right to defend their views in public, although some of them offend, shock or disturb a portion of the population. They can therefore advocate solutions to problems related to immigration. However, they should avoid doing so by advocating racial discrimination and by using words or attitudes vexatious or humiliating, because such behavior may generate among the public reactions incompatible with a peaceful social climate and undermine confidence in democratic institutions.
Feret v. Belgium 78. The Court has reviewed the disputed documents disclosed by the applicant and considers that the findings of the courts regarding these publications were fully justified. The language used by the applicant with clear incentives to discrimination and racial hatred, which can not be camouflaged by the electoral process.
Feret v. Belgium DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE Andras Sajo WHICH DECLARE TO ACCEPT THE JUDGES AND VLADIMIRO ZAGREBELSKY Nona To my regret, I can not agree with the majority opinion finding no violation of Article 10 of the Convention. In my view, confirm the criminal prosecution of political discourse in this case goes against freedom of expression.
Feret v. Belgium DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE Andras Sajo WHICH DECLARE TO ACCEPT THE JUDGES AND VLADIMIRO ZAGREBELSKY Nona My colleagues and I have a different concept of freedom of expression and therefore restriction of a criminal that we can bring in a democratic society. I fear that free speech is sacrificed to a policy of non-discrimination invoking methods that restrict the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Convention without compelling reason.
Feret v. Belgium DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE Andras Sajo WHICH DECLARE TO ACCEPT THE JUDGES AND VLADIMIRO ZAGREBELSKY Nona There is not, in the statements of Mr. Feret, call for violence against a section of the population, in which case the national authorities enjoy a wider margin of appreciation (Ceylan v. Turkey [ GC],
Feret v. Belgium DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE Andras Sajo WHICH DECLARE TO ACCEPT THE JUDGES AND VLADIMIRO ZAGREBELSKY Nona It is true that some documents were available at the same time (albeit separately) on the website of Mr Feret but the web sites differ from other forms of distribution because they can "download" at will (the interested should actively seek their own information). In other words, opinions are not "imposed" as they are in the disclosure of paper documents.
Feret v. Belgium DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE Andras Sajo WHICH DECLARE TO ACCEPT THE JUDGES AND VLADIMIRO ZAGREBELSKY Nona "If we adapt the standard enunciated in Sürek in discrimination cases, it is clear that the terms must be likely to encourage discrimination by inspiring a deep hatred and irrational to those who were portrayed as responsible for alleged atrocities. Discrimination, like violence, involves action.
Feret v. Belgium DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE Andras Sajo WHICH DECLARE TO ACCEPT THE JUDGES AND VLADIMIRO ZAGREBELSKY Nona Feret's remarks on government policy do not invite to acts of discrimination available to the general public and they do not call for a boycott, or refuse service to prevent migrants. Even if the "uninformed masses" gave way to intolerance (in their attitude or mentality), they might influence the provision of social services to immigrants. (Kitas testas)
Feret v. Belgium DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE Andras Sajo WHICH DECLARE TO ACCEPT THE JUDGES AND VLADIMIRO ZAGREBELSKY Nona. It is not for those who control political power (as their interests led him to keep) to establish a catalog of misconceptions or unacceptable. But stop (moving away from his own conceptions in political discourse) believes in human beings and a stratum of "idiots" unable to respond to arguments and arguments against, because of the irresistible urge their irrational emotions.
Feret v. Belgium DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE Andras Sajo WHICH DECLARE TO ACCEPT THE JUDGES AND VLADIMIRO ZAGREBELSKY Nona What began in an effort to control the content ends with about a rapid expansion of the list of prohibited content simply because of "dangerous speech" without elaborating