The Court indicates that the action carried
Posted: Mon Dec 23, 2024 4:34 am
Limits to freedom of expression must be weighed. The courts must assess, before any other question arises, and always take into account the circumstances of the specific case, whether the conduct constitutes a lawful exercise of the fundamental right to freedom of expression and is justified by the predominant value of freedom of expression.
Some examples where the limits to freedom of expression can be seen:
In the ruling of the National Court of 5 December 2008, the Court states that the facts under trial are not protected by the right to freedom of expression (this is a case where photographs of the King and Queen were burned during a demonstration), and is based on the doctrine of the Constitutional Court that in order to decide which right prevails, the expressions or actions must be analysed and it must be verified whether they were insulting and unnecessary to express public opinion. out by the accused is unnecessary and exceeds the limits of freedom of expression.
Another ruling that follows the same line of jurisprudence, the ruling of switzerland phone numbers example the National Court of 18 May 2009, deals with a similar case where two young people burn the figure of the King. In its second legal basis it indicates that the action carried out by the accused is not protected by the right to freedom of expression or the right to ideological freedom since the burning of the figure of the King has no relation to the right to express and form a public opinion. There has been an overstepping of the law.
When there is a conflict of rights, it must be understood that attacks on honour are attacks on the dignity of the person. Honour is linked to the principle of dignity, as is understood by the majority doctrine.
Freedom of information and expression sometimes take precedence over other fundamental rights. This is due to their nature, since they are individual rights but also serve to form a free public opinion, something basic in a State governed by the rule of law. Furthermore, when expressions are made in the course of a political act, the scope of protection increases and criticisms that may annoy or disturb are permitted.
The value given to these rights is not absolute and has limits. They lack any constitutional protection when these freedoms are exercised in an excessive manner. The right to insult is not protected and derogatory expressions are excluded from article 20 CE .
Therefore, the Courts must carry out an analysis of the circumstances of each case in order to determine whether or not there has been a crime against honour or dignity, or whether, on the contrary, such conduct is protected by the right to freedom of expression.
Some examples where the limits to freedom of expression can be seen:
In the ruling of the National Court of 5 December 2008, the Court states that the facts under trial are not protected by the right to freedom of expression (this is a case where photographs of the King and Queen were burned during a demonstration), and is based on the doctrine of the Constitutional Court that in order to decide which right prevails, the expressions or actions must be analysed and it must be verified whether they were insulting and unnecessary to express public opinion. out by the accused is unnecessary and exceeds the limits of freedom of expression.
Another ruling that follows the same line of jurisprudence, the ruling of switzerland phone numbers example the National Court of 18 May 2009, deals with a similar case where two young people burn the figure of the King. In its second legal basis it indicates that the action carried out by the accused is not protected by the right to freedom of expression or the right to ideological freedom since the burning of the figure of the King has no relation to the right to express and form a public opinion. There has been an overstepping of the law.
When there is a conflict of rights, it must be understood that attacks on honour are attacks on the dignity of the person. Honour is linked to the principle of dignity, as is understood by the majority doctrine.
Freedom of information and expression sometimes take precedence over other fundamental rights. This is due to their nature, since they are individual rights but also serve to form a free public opinion, something basic in a State governed by the rule of law. Furthermore, when expressions are made in the course of a political act, the scope of protection increases and criticisms that may annoy or disturb are permitted.
The value given to these rights is not absolute and has limits. They lack any constitutional protection when these freedoms are exercised in an excessive manner. The right to insult is not protected and derogatory expressions are excluded from article 20 CE .
Therefore, the Courts must carry out an analysis of the circumstances of each case in order to determine whether or not there has been a crime against honour or dignity, or whether, on the contrary, such conduct is protected by the right to freedom of expression.