In TV Vest v. Norway, it was held that the prohibition on political advertisements breached the Convention. The ban was absolute and was applicable only to television. Considering the importance of political speech and the lack of anything offensive, the court found there to be a breach. It distinguished the Murphy case.<\/p>\n
Animal Defenders International v. UK involved a proposed advertisement that ADI wished to air on television regarding the abuse of chimps in entertainment. The advertisement was declined because it was primarily\u00a0political in nature and breached the Communications Act.<\/p>\n
The Court used a balancing approach and looked at \u201cthe applicant NGO\u2019s right to impart information and ideas of general interest which the public is entitled to receive with, on the other, the authorities desire to protect the democratic debate and process from distortion by powerful financial groups with advantageous access to influential media.\u201d<\/p>\n
The Court looked at the necessity and proportionality of the Act in comparison to the threatened freedom of speech violations. This was not an all-out ban on political speech (only advertising) and the forum was limited to television and radio. Therefore, the Court ruled there was no violation of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.<\/p>\n\n
\n <\/div>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
ECHR Guarantee Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides that everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions, and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent states from requiring the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[349],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10210"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10210"}],"version-history":[{"count":9,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10210\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":23584,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10210\/revisions\/23584"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10210"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10210"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10210"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}