Balancing Free Expression And Public Safety Dissertation

Introduction 

Purpose of the Project

This research will seek to establish the way that the law on Public Law in the United Kingdom controls the hate speech and other forms of speech regarded as harmful in the society, while at the same time promoting free speech. This involves consideration of the provision of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which is given effect to in the UK through the Human Rights Act 1998. Every democracy recognizes the freedom of speech as one of the rights of the people but not an absolute right.

Aims and Objectives

In this project, the will be to evaluate the approach employed by the UK Public Law in managing the compounding conflict in free speech and the public security. One of the objectives is to clarify the understanding of Article 10 and its utilization in the UK legislation. Another is to assess whether different types of speech in the UK are limited by the law and whether these limitations adhere to Article 10(2).

Scope and Limitations

This work is devoted to concerns of UK Public Law and its stance on the question of harmful speech in the context of the Article 10 ECHR. It discusses UK legislation and case law to analyse how and to what extent the freedom of speech is upheld and restrained. The consideration of Article 10 will be done in the broader context of the system of protection of human rights in Europe although the emphasis will be made on its protection in the United Kingdom. As a result, references to case law of the European Court of Human Rights will be made to support the analysis, however, the project does not involve the comparison of the Ukrainian legislation with the legislation of other countries. Cross-referencing with other legal systems will only be made where it will provide relevance or contrast.

Justification for Topic Choice

It is relevant to discuss this topic now because freedom of speech is one of the essential principles of democracy. At the same time, cases have shown how speech can be damaging to the public interests and endanger people’s rights. This has generated increases of hate speech, threats, and extremism online, forcing people to demand for a more stringent regulation[5]. The Public Order Act, the Communications Act, and the more recent Online Safety Act are among the ways through which the state has drawn the media and the public into a discussion about the extent of control it can exercise over speech.

Discussion 

The legal Freedom of Expression under Article 10 ECHR parameters into law:

Overview of Article 10(1) and 10(2) ECHR

The article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights is for protection of the freedom of speech. It is under this right that some scholars assert that it is one of the prominent and integral rights being enshrined under the Convention. According to Article 10(1) of the Charter, every person should be free to get and disseminate information and ideas, which are not interfered with by the public authorities. This comprises the right to freedom of expression in speech, in writing, in print, and in any form of media. The right is general and encompasses all the freedoms of speech, be it spoken or written words, paintings, rallies and demonstrations, physical movements or signs and gestures. It has equal relevance in respect of the individual and the group as well as organisations.

However Article 10 has been put in place as a qualified right only which means that it is subjected to some conditions. Article 10(2) makes provision for restriction of freedom of expression in certain circumstances. These limitations must satisfy some conditions. At first their formulation into Law, there must be an express provision. This means that it has to be comprehensible, easily intelligible and unambiguous[11]. Second of all, the restriction must be aimed at a legitimate interest.

Third, the restriction must conform to the principle and values of democracy in a fighting chance to be upheld. This means that the restrictions should not be arbitrary and excessive restrictions on Free speech must correspond to the significance of the legitimate aim to be achieved[12]. This task is usually done by using the balancing test to determine whether the restrictions fulfill these conditions[13]. The Court has held that freedom of speech or freedom of expression is one of the fundamental rights of any democratic society[14]. These have now become part of the UK Public Law through the Human Rights Act.

Incorporation into UK Law: Human Rights Act 1998

The European Convention of human rights was incorporated in the UK law through the Human Rights Act of 1998, and this made article 10 a legal requirement in the UK. Previously, the citizens could approach the European Court in Strasbourg if they considered their rights to have been infringed upon[15]. The Human Rights Act actually opens up these questions to be addressed directly in the courts of the United Kingdom[16]. In accordance with section 6 of the Act, every public body, police, government departments, and local authorities shall administrate, and perform its functions, in a manner that is compatible with human rights[17]. For this reason they must not do anything contrary to Article 10 unless the legislation permits it and the derogation is necessary.

Section 3 of the Act also provides that courts must perform the function of interpreting all UK laws with regard to the rights under the Human Rights Act[18]. In case the statute is found to be incompatible with any of the provisions of the Convention, the superior courts of the United Kingdom are capable of declaring the incompatibility[19]. This does not repeal the law, but it brings it to the Parliament that maybe change is needed. R (Miller) v College of Policing [2020] EWHC 225 (Admin), Police treated a tweet to be a non-crime hate incident. High Court found this infringement of Article 10 as free expression and was not lawfully justified.

Since the coming of the Act, a number of the UK courts have elaborated on the case laws relating to Article 10[20]. They mostly employ the same three-tier test as followed in the EEC[21]. This clearly indicates that the principles of Article 10 have also been incorporated as one of the main aspects of the UK Public Law[22]. Garayev v Azerbaijan (2007) ECHR 863, The European Court underlined the necessity that public authorities could not silence dissent since it was merely a cover for security. The case shows that the restrictions of expressing oneself must be necessary and proportionate. Otto-Preminger-Institut v Austria (1994) 19 EHRR 34 a film was banned for religious offence.

Scope of Protected Speech: Political, Artistic, and Offensive Speech

Article 10 of the Constitution protects several forms of speech. Speech regarding politics and political issues enjoys the highest level of protection as enshrined in the constitution of some countries[23]. Such as freedom of speech, press freedom, freedom of assembly including demonstrations, public discussions, and debates on social matters[24]. Several courts have ruled that political freedom of speech is a necessity in any democracy and any ban on such speech no matter the language used is unconstitutional[25]. This Redmond-Bate v DPP case has further affirmed that freedom of expression encompasses even the right to protest and even speak ill of authority[26]. The Court (Dasgupta, 2007, para. 38) endorsed Austria’s decision because it pursued legitimate aims and demonstrated how public morals as well as rights of others can restrict Article 10. Wingrove v United Kingdom (1996) 24 EHRR 1, a refusals certification was made on blasphemous grounds. The Court found no violation of Article 10, confirming state margin of appreciation in the regulation of offensive speech for the sake of public morals.

Artistic freedom is also considered protected under Article 10. This encompasses drama, books, music, painting and sculpture etc[27]. The courts understand that creativity is an essential factor in the growth of an individual as well as in societal discourse[28]. This is because restrictions to freedom of speech, especially when it comes to expression through art are sometimes questionable[29]. However, freedom of speech is not limitless and extends to defamation and other objectionable information as well as offensive speech[30]. Thus, if a person starts using words that are oppressive or advocating for violence, he or she may not be protected[31]. British law also contains a number of offences regulating this type of abusive actions, such as under the Prevention of Byron Act 1986[32]. In Gündüz v Turkey (2004) ECHR 647 conviction of a speech defending Sharia law was held disproportionate. The Court found the speech non-inflammatory against violence, therefore should be protected by Article 10, thus supporting controversial opinions. Sunday Times v United Kingdom (No. 1) (1979) 2 EHRR 245, an injunction of a court against an article in the newspaper was declared against Violation of Article 10. This case shows that public interest speech has good protection from censorship.

It means that the courts need to consider the freedom of expression while exercising the responsibility to safeguard the public and order[33]. This makes Article 10 one of the most contentious but fundamental rights in the legal framework.

Restrictions on speech in a democratic society: Theoretical Justification

Prescribed by Law and Necessary in a Democracy

Once people live in a democratic society they have a right to free speech but with certain conditions. Apparently, under article 10 (paragraph 2) of European Convention on Human Rights a prior restraints are possible if they correspond to specific legal requirements[34]. The first of these qualifications is that they can only be imposed if they are prescribed by law[35]. This means it is necessary for the law to be certain, publicly available, and predictable.

This means that the restriction must meet two stipulations, necessity and being in the interest of a democratic society. This is a higher standard to be set for something than just being utilitarian or even signaling that it is preferred[36]. That means that the interference must address a current social concern. Judicial authorities need to determine whether there is a strong justification for the limitation of the right and whether the restriction in question is not excessive[37]. Courts do not always follow what the government says.

Legitimate Aims: Public Safety, Crime Prevention, Protection of Other’s Rights

The caught up targets in Article 10(2) are the correct intentions that can provide restriction to freedom of speech. One of them is the protection of the public[38]. Anonymity has made it easy for individuals to perpetrate heinous crimes against fellow citizens without being easily identified[39]. In the UK, this is often in relation to pronouncements which may lead to violence, terrorism, revolt among other related vices[40]. Measures such as the Terrorism Act 2006 enable the authorities to act against the performance that is likely to promote terrorism[41].

Another legal benefit is the prevention of insecurity or lawlessness. This has been crucial especially where speech has escalated to the level of use of force or any action that has brought confusion among the protesters[42]. For example, section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986 authorises the police to restrict protest if they deem that a breach of the peace is probable. These powers should be exercised rationally and in proportion or in a similar logic[43]. Supreme courts have discussed the exercise of such powers to ensure that freedom of speech is not suppressed, and free speech rights are infringed on by the state.

The third purpose is to defend the rights and honor of other people, if it is necessary. This ranges from hate speech laws, harassment laws, and defamation laws[44]. For instance, if one is discriminating against a specific race or a group of people associated with a certain religion, the state may have to act in order to safeguard the freedoms of the offended parties[45]. In the UK, there are also protections for people’s reputation, for instance, the law of libel[46]. However, the courts must consider this against the freedom of speech especially when the speech is one that concerns the public[47]. It is for these legitimate objectives that peoples’ lives can be defended, and social order preserved, these cannot however, be the reasons for storing all forms of criticism or media censorship.

The principles Margin of Appreciation and Proportionality Doctrine

The doctrine of the margin of appreciation is that which provides a degree of discretion for national governments on the application of human rights. Thus, the European Court of Human Rights acknowledges that each country has its peculiarities that may be social, cultural, or political[48]. Thus, local courts and legislators are provided with a certain degree of freedom to determine the proper approach to the protection and balancing of rights in a given country[49]. Nevertheless, this margin is cut off by certain boundaries that are quite well defined.

To prevent this kind of flexibility to be abused, the courts use the proportionality test[50]. This test involves the assessment as to whether it is appropriate to interfere with this right in order to achieve the goal, whether there is a less restrictive option than that which has been chosen, and whether the benefits that are likely to be achieved by the restriction of the right outweigh the total costs of restricting it[51]. The UK judges have applied this in many of the article's 10 cases particularly where the public authority uses laws to regulate protest or media.

Reasonable proportionality guarantees the free speech rights remain recognized even when those rights are restricted in some way[52]. This is beneficial for the courts and lawmakers in coming up with ways of protecting the society especially through preventing any happenings that may lead to more tragedy while at the same time an individual’s free speech is protected[53]. It is now considered as a normative approach on how UK Public Law should approach the implementation of Article 10.

The Degree of Harm in the UK Public Law Jurisprudence

Legislative Measures

Apart from the Human Rights Act, UK public law employs several other laws to regulate hate speech. These laws seek to achieve the goal of protecting the society but at the same time recognizing the freedom of speech[54]. Some of which are the Public Order Act 1986[55]. This Act specifically criminalizes the use of threats, abuses, or insults that are likely to cause fear or incitement of an individual or the public to violent actions[56]. The Act empowers the police to arrest people and disperse protest or any form of speech they deem could lead to public unrest[57]. Such powers have been described as requiring exercise with caution since they derogate the rights of individuals to protest or to express their right in public places.

Other important laws include the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act and others that embody counter-terrorism legislation. Some of the laws closely relate to speech that is regarded as encouraging terrorism and extremism[58]. For example, the law considers it unlawful to disclose or transmit materials that advocate for terror attacks.

Criminal provisions to counteract abusive media coverage are provided for in the Communications Act, passed in 2003[59]. Section 127 of the Act also gives the provision of making it unlawful to send messages through a public communication network that is grossly offensive, indecent, obscene or threatening[60]. This has been applied in cases of Facebook tweets, threats made on social media platforms, or cyber bullying.

If passed at the time of writing, the blankly called Online Safety Act includes additional rules to fight Harmful Speech[61]. It puts some obligations on the technology companies to take down the unlawful content and shield individuals from poor material[62]. There are still issues arising from application of this law as to whether free speech should be sacrificed for safety, or the other way round.

Case Law Analysis

UK and European courts therefore have largely defined how deleterious speech is managed in the two regions. In R v Collins [2006], the offender found himself charged for making racist comments during the course of a telephone conversation with the local council[63]. For a speech to be considered as defamatory, the speech has to be grossly offensive and the conviction was upheld by the court[64]. This case indicated that non-allowance of racism or hate based speech is valid as free speech does not protect speech which most of the time is bound to cause severe annoyance or distress [65]. In Handyside v UK (1976) the ECtHR upheld the freedom of expression under Article 10 being not only of acceptable opinion[66]. This also that which may be regarded as shocking or prejudicial to the moral or ethical standards of those regarded as being enlightened or civilized[67]. The Court stated that the UK did not violate Article 10, but at the same time, the decision signaled that freedom of speech is dear to democracy regardless of the message that is being conveyed[68].

The case of Redmond-Bate v DPP [1999] is one of the most reported and remarkable cases in the UK in which the courts defend free speech during protests[69]. In this case, a woman who was going about preaching in public was arrested on the grounds of breach of peace[70]. Speaking out ruled that freedom of speech should not be limited in a way that it leads to annoyance or provoking reactions.

The case of Norwood v United Kingdom (2004) 40 EHRR SE11 also considers the prohibition of hate speech in Europe. The BNP then posted the picture of a man holding a poster saying, “Islam is evil.” As to the matter mentioned in the complaint the European Court of Human Right deemed it inadmissible asserting that the message disseminated is discriminatory and, therefore, is not a type of message protected by article 10 of the Convention. This supports the perspective that While advocating for one’s right to free speech, it could also be argued that speech that incites hate can be limited.

European and UK courts have also made many recent decisions regarding hate speech, protest and other social media cases. These examples can illustrate how the state attempts to achieve safety and retain the rights of the individual[71]. These laws and those cases demonstrate that while UK public law aims to suppress dangerous speech it happens in a manner that does not offend Article 10[72]. It is to prevent actual harm to citizens and societies without limiting the freedom of speech in a society of a democratic nature.

Balancing Rights: Judicial Interpretation and State Discretion

UK Courts’ Interpretation: Liberty vs Security

In a given case in the UK, the court is most often confronted with the question of whether free speech should be restricted in order to protect the public or any other interest. This leads to an element of tension between liberty and security[73]. The rights of an individual to speak freely can be limited by the state to protect other people in the United Kingdom[74]. This is particularly challenging if speech is in some way abrasive, politically incorrect and associated with protest or cyber criminality[75].

Courts also rely on the Human Rights Act 1998 which is used to inform the decision making process of the courts[76]. They have to reconsider Articles 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and establish if there are any reasons to interfere with this right[77]. Judges have to determine whether such a restriction was legal, pursued a legitimate aim, and was proportional in a liberal democracy[78]. This way courts attempt to prevent a convenient idea of freedom from being infringed on for no justifiable cause[79]. It is important to differentiate between hate speech and freedom of speech and the courts hold the opinion that speech that may offend people or make them feel uncomfortable is also protected. However, they also understand that not all speech needs the same form of protection[80]. For instance, speech that may amount to hate speech or speech that causes violence may be restricted more easily[81]. Thus, UK courts attempt to pursue an ‘equality of interests’ between individual liberty secured with the help of human rights and shared community interest in protection against the risks of crime implementation.

Proportionality in Practice: Case Comparisons

The principle of proportionality has always been an important element of this type of weighing. Judges want to know whether the limitation of speech went further than what was reasonable[82]. They assess whether the given speech was dangerous to the extent that it warranted censorship or whether there were other measures that could be taken first.

Among the previous cases, one of the most informative cases to be compared is Redmond-Bate v DPP and R v Collins[83]. Another real life example is the Redmond-Bate case where the woman was arrested for evangelizing in public[84]. While her actions were rather interpreted as annoying the women did not feel threatened by her. Therefore, the court was of the view that her arrest was unlawful as her statements were not provocative enough to instill one with fear or place anyone in danger. The case proved that free speech that goes against the grain, or is not well received, ought not to be forbidden in a free society.

In yet another case of freedom of expression, in R (Laporte) v Chief Constable of Gloucestershire [2006] UKHL 55, the House of Lords had to deal with facts which involved police stopping a coach of peaceful protesters on their way to an airbase[85]. The response was extravagant and rather disproportionate in relation to the threat[86]. This case is momentous as it captures how the cardinality of public order weighs against the freedom of assembly.

On the other hand, in the case of Austin v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2009] UKHL 5 the use of kettling during a protest in London was deemed legal. Thus, the limitation of mobility was deemed reasonable as a means of eliminating violence[87]. This case demonstrate that there is a times when it may be natural to assume public safety is more important than someone’s freedom of movement.

An example is the case of Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon, also known as Tommy Robinson, who was guilty of a contempt of court due to videoing outside a trial. The court referred to his actions to have infringed on the right to a fair trial[88]. This case gives information on how free speech is protected and how the legal process should also be protected too[89]. Thus, the restriction of speech of the defendant was proven to be reasonable because it seeks to protect the sanctity of the justice system.

These cases show that UK judges do not take rights lightly to balance[90]. Those Balkan states are rather impartial and they do not lean toward security or liberty but, using the facts of the case, they attempt to achieve a middle ground.

Contemporary Challenges and Policy Debates

Contemporary Challenges and Policy Debates

The changing features of speech in contemporary society, there are new opportunities in social networking sites. It is evident that people share their opinions freely and in a very short time as compared to the past[91]. This has brought about conditions that have enhanced the issue of freedom of expression and at the same time complicating the same[92]. Besides, while everyone is active in the digital public sphere, negative messages travel fast[93]. Internet harassment, cyber bullying and fake information are very alarming.

In the UK, the challenges are being met with legal frameworks such as the Communications Act of 2003 and the new Online Safety Act. In these laws, the processes focus on minimizing the impact of these laws on the people’s rights [94]. Thus, the further increase of government and internet giant’s interventions into the sphere of freedom of speech remains a rather disputable issue[95]. Some people feel that this may prevent free speech flow which may include dissenting opinion and majority dissenting opinion.

In Perinçek v Switzerland (2015) ECHR 1180, European Court made the judgement in favour of a turkey politician who denied Armenian genocide. This meant that the Court determined that his right to free speech was abridged[96]. This is because it underscored that speech relating to history should be protected regardless of whether they are considered contentious[97]. This case is frequently mentioned when one tries to determine how much speech can be restricted by public authorities.

E.S. v Austria 2018 ECHR 890 is a case where a woman was convicted because of offending the Prophet Muhammad. The Court affirmed the conviction basing on the view that her speech not only included criticism but also incited religious intolerance[98]. This case yet again depicts that the Court also gives paramount importance to religious tolerance over free speech.

Role of Social Media Platforms and States Regulation

Social media websites are considered to be exceptionally vital networks for people nowadays. They decide which content is allowed on the platform and which is not. Such companies are not politically independent however they have their sets of rules, and they also operate under some national laws[99]. In the UK, the Online Safety Act makes provisions for them to remove such contents which are illegal and harmful[100].

Some people have an argument that a company has control over speech up to the extent of complete censorship [101]. Some people believe they are not quick enough in alleviating harm[102]. Some people, however, believe that they censor it selectively and unscrupulously without proper explanation. However, the UK government now demands from the platform to protect the users but respect their rights[103]. This raises a key question about the privacy of the companies that mimic public entities in terms of their freedom of speech[104]. Future of online speech regulation in the United Kingdom will largely depend on the response given by the courts, lawmakers and society to this question.

Theoretical and interdisciplinary perspectives

Philosophical Justifications: Against Mill’s Harm Principle and Critique

It is coined one of the most often cited principles on free speech, which was proposed by the philosopher John Stuart Mill. According to Mill, liberty of speech should only be restricted if the speech interferes with the liberty of others[105]. This is called the harm principle, which refers to the belief that individuals have the right to do as they please so long as they are not inflicting harm on others[106]. Mill maintained that people should be allowed to speak freely of a thought even if that thought is something that will offend someone or is proven to be false so long as the thought cannot be deemed to harm the interests of another[107]. He holds a liberal stance relating to freedom of speech and is effectively applied in courtroom cases in the UK and throughout other parts of Europe.

However, there are different opinions and viewpoints as to what Mill had to say on this matter. According to some thinkers who have had arguments from the communitarian perspectives, speech may also be harmful in the sense of the use of words[108]. They claim that hate speech for instance is capable of eroding the communal fabric and exposing members of the society to sick feelings. These critics hold that it is the societal responsibility to encourage and defend the core values and the weaker members of the society[109]. Another reason as to why they hold this view is to ensure that there are more restrictions on speech as much as this will safeguard the unity of the public.

Read Our Last Article: https://nativeassignmenthelp.blogspot.com/2026/09/section-1b-impact-of-operations-and.html

Roots of Speech, Authority and Security from the Sociology Perspective

Sociology is important in helping us understand or rather unravel the real concept of speech as used in societies. It demonstrates that it is not the same thing for every individual to be able to speak[110]. Some of them will be additionally vulnerable to toxic speech including those from some minority or marginalized groups of the population[111]. For them, hate speech and or abusive language is not merely a language that is prohibited and insensitive but one that can cause them exclusion or violence.

Sociologists also analyze the forum created by the media and internet. It is evident from the social media activities that more people are given the platform to express themselves but at the same time these are channels for fake news and harassment[112]. This actually makes harmful speech become more apparent and risky. In the UK these ideas illustrate why new risks need to be negotiated by the law[113]. This is the meaning of harm when thinking about restrictions on it that is used by legislators in the UK and courts and courts.

Conclusion

Summary of Findings

This paper has explored moderations and restrictions of freedom of speech in the UK context in light of the Article 10 of ECHR. The analysis also revealed that UK public law provides freedom of speech but at the same time restrains the same when it endangers the lives of people, encourages violence or is unlawful in any way. Other acts, for instance, the Public Order Act of 1986, Counter Terrorism and Security Acts, and the Communications Act of 2003 all come into play in the determination of speech that should be protected. Particularly, the context of proportionality is crucial to evaluating if certain speech should be restricted or not.

Evaluation of UK’s Approach: Strengths and Shortcomings

Based on the current legislation in the UK, there are several advantages that the UK has when it comes to dealing with harmful speech. The legal rules adopted for the protection of speech are liberal and one is afforded the liberty to make contextual adjustments without infringing on the liberties of speech[114]. That is where the courts come into play with their responsibility to right balance the freedoms and the duty to apply norms such as the harm principle and proportionality[115]. Similar to UK law, the jurisdiction is supported by the European Court of Human Rights so that the laws do not contradict International Human Rights.

However, there are notable shortcomings. It should therefore be noted that the very general nature of some legislation, such as the Communications Act 2003, means that there may well be a fanatic approach to censorship[116]. This can have a negative impact on free speech, particularly on the internet. Particularly, the issue of regulating such speech has emerged as a prominent subject of concern in as much as doubt has been cast to present legislation[117]. Not to mention the debate of increased responsibility for tech companies in matters concerning content moderation[118]. There are also other legislations that sparked a lot of controversy like the ones regulating public order such as the Public Order Act 2023 which are thought to hinder protest and democracy.

Recommendations

The challenges could be brought about by the considerations of legal reforms. The first suggests that there be clearer rules and a legal definition of what is poor speech particularly to cover digital incidents. This would help to minimize confusion and also foster the much-needed certainty in implementation of the laws[119]. Furthermore, there could be better judicial supervision as to when and how the public order laws are being enforced in a way that infringes the right to assembly.

Final Reflections

Therefore, the fight between freedom of speech and safety is still a fairly complicated story in liberal democratic UK. It aims to save lives and prevent the community from getting destroyed while maintaining and embracing democracy principles[120]. Although these problems are mentioned they are not as prevalent in the UK as they used to be.

Reference List

Journals

A Godioli, J Young and BM Fiori, ‘Laughing Matters: Humor, Free Speech and Hate Speech at the European Court of Human Rights’ (2022) 35(6) International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 2241. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11196-022-09949-8.pdf

A Koltay, ‘The Protection of Freedom of Expression from Social Media Platforms’ (2021) 73 Mercer Law Review 523. https://digitalcommons.law.mercer.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2721&context=jour_mlr

A Krzywoń, ‘Freedom of Expression of Civil Servants: Balancing Duties and Responsibilities with the Requirements of Open and Free Public Debate’ in The Civil Service in Europe (Routledge 2025) 806. https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/97924/1/9781040313053.pdf#page=825

A Lazdāne, Freedom of Expression and the Times of Emergency: Analysis of Article 15 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Derogations Made by Turkey and Hungary During COVID-19 Pandemic (2021). https://dspace.lu.lv/dspace/bitstream/handle/7/56551/Lazdane_Alina.pdf?sequence=1

A Mehla and L Mehla, ‘The Telecommunications Act, 2023: Solidarity Between Democracy and Totalitarianism’ (2024) 45(2) Statute Law Review hmae032. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Akshra-Mehla-2/publication/387104493_The_Telecommunications_Act_2023_Solidarity_Between_Democracy_and_Totalitarianism/links/6760ec41996d2552c3f2e076/The-Telecommunications-Act-2023-Solidarity-Between-Democracy-and-Totalitarianism.pdf

A Nurse, ‘Preventing Marine Wildlife Crime: An Evaluation of Legal Protection and Enforcement Perspectives’ (2023) 3 Frontiers in Conservation Science 1102823. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcosc.2022.1102823/pdf

A Sardo, ‘Freedom of Expression, Sliding-Scales, and Fake News’ in The Rule of Law in Europe: Recent Challenges and Judicial Responses (2021) 265–288. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-56001-0_16

A Strandén, ‘Not Every Act Motivated by Religion Is Protected – The Interrelations Between Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Expression and Hate Speech Based on Sexual Orientation in the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights’ (2022). https://www.doria.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/185165/strand%C3%A9n_alexandra.pdf?sequence=2

A Tsesis, ‘Justice Breyer's Balanced Reasoning on Free Speech: A Comparative Analysis’ (2023) 21 First Amendment Law Review 395. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm?abstractid=5051443

B Chen, ‘The COVID-19 Border Closure to India: Would an Australian Human Rights Act Have Made a Difference?’ (2021) 46(4) Alternative Law Journal 320. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8685464/pdf/10.1177_1037969X211040618.pdf

B Farrand, ‘How Do We Understand Online Harms? The Impact of Conceptual Divides on Regulatory Divergence Between the Online Safety Act and Digital Services Act’ (2024) Journal of Media Law 1. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/17577632.2024.2357463

B Paulos and S Çelik, ‘The Challenges of Regulating Hate Speech on Social Media in Light of the Theory of Freedom of Expression’ (2021) 11(1) Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 97. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/1719724

B Török, ‘Free Speech Principles to Consider When Restricting Disinformation’ (2024) 24(2) Information Society/Információs Társadalom (InfTars). https://www.epa.hu/01900/01963/00083/pdf/EPA01963_inf_2024_02_115-128.pdf

C Armstrong, ‘Freedom of Information and Expression in the Private International Law of the European Union: The Anti-SLAPP Directive and Evolution of the Right of Public Participation’ (2024) 3 YEUCL 104. https://yeucl.free.nf/index.php/yeucl/article/download/24/23

C Armstrong, ‘Freedom of Information and Expression in the Private International Law of the European Union. The Anti-SLAPP Directive and Evolution of the Right of Public Participation’ (2024) 3 YEUCL 104. https://yeucl.free.nf/index.php/yeucl/article/download/24/23

C Casey, S Laws and R Ekins, ‘The Impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 in Twenty-Five Cases’ (2024) SSRN https://ssrn.com/abstract=XXXXX accessed 8 May 2025. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm?abstractid=5074928

C Wiersma, ‘Scoping the Journalists’ Freedom to Conduct Newsgathering at the European Court of Human Rights: A Step Toward a More Human Rights-Based Approach to the Coverage of ECHR Article 10?’ (2021) 26(4) Communication Law and Policy 507. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Chris-Wiersma-2/publication/355574820_Scoping_the_Journalists%27_Freedom_to_Conduct_Newsgathering_at_the_European_Court_of_Human_Rights_A_Step_Toward_a_More_Human_Rights-Based_Approach_to_the_Coverage_of_ECHR_Article_10/links/6452b9a3809a535021480616/Scoping-the-Journalists-Freedom-to-Conduct-Newsgathering-at-the-European-Court-of-Human-Rights-A-Step-Toward-a-More-Human-Rights-Based-Approach-to-the-Coverage-of-ECHR-Article-10.pdf

CM Buckley, K Kamber and P McCormick, ‘The Right to Freedom of Expression’ in Hors Collection (2022) 225. https://www.cairn-int.info/european-convention-human-rights--9789287191908-page-225.htm

DJ Harris and others, Law of the European Convention on Human Rights (Oxford University Press 2023). https://biblioteca.corteidh.or.cr/tablas/29134.pdf

E Bechtold, ‘Regulating Online Harms: An Examination of Recent Developments in the UK and the US through a Free Speech Lens’ (2024) Journal of Media Law 1. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/17577632.2024.2395094

E Gerasimova and E Sychenko, ‘Council of Europe: European Social Charter and European Convention on Human Rights’ in EU Collective Labour Law (Edward Elgar Publishing 2021) 102. https://www.elgaronline.com/edcollchap/edcoll/9781788116381/9781788116381.00012.xml

E Hauksdóttir, ‘Restricting Freedom of Expression for Religious Peace: On the ECHR’s Approach to Blasphemy’ (2021) 2(1) European Convention on Human Rights Law Review 75. https://brill.com/view/journals/eclr/2/1/article-p75_75.pdf

E Hauksdóttir, ‘Restricting Freedom of Expression for Religious Peace: On the ECHR’s Approach to Blasphemy’ (2021) 2(1) European Convention on Human Rights Law Review 75. https://brill.com/view/journals/eclr/2/1/article-p75_75.pdf

E Judson, B Kira and JW Howard, ‘The Bypass Strategy: Platforms, the Online Safety Act and Future of Online Speech’ (2024) Journal of Media Law 1. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/17577632.2024.2361524

Articles

E Shattock, ‘Risky Business: Freedom of Expression vs. Harmful Content in Ireland’s Online Safety and Media Regulation (OSMR) Act’ (2024) 21 SCRIPTed 40. https://journals.ed.ac.uk/script-ed/article/download/10148/12892

EA O'Loughlin, ‘Reforms to Section 3 of the Human Rights Act’ (2022). https://durham-repository.worktribe.com/output/1696504

F Alemi and others, ‘Support for the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), With Caution’ (2023) 32(4) Quality Management in Healthcare 278. https://journals.lww.com/qmhcjournal/fulltext/2023/10000/support_for_the_kids_online_safety_act__kosa_,.9.aspx

F Casarosa, M Fajdiga and M Moraru, ‘Should Judicial Voices Be Heard? Judicial Interactions Between National and European Courts Reframing Freedom of Expression as a Tool to Protect the European Rule of Law’ in Freedom of Expression of Judges (Routledge 2025) 3. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781003470779-2/judicial-voices-heard-judicial-interactions-national-european-courts-reframing-freedom-expression-tool-protect-european-rule-law-federica-casarosa-mohor-fajdiga-madalina-moraru

F Kasl, ‘Labelling Speech’ in Challenging Online Propaganda and Disinformation in the 21st Century (2021) 105. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-58624-9_4

FO Ajiola, ‘Cocoa Transfer Agreements, Moneylenders, Public Letter Writers and the Rise of Business Elites in South West Nigeria, 1986–2000’ (2024) 69(2) Zeitschrift für Unternehmensgeschichte 277. https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/zug-2023-0035/html

G Gunatilleke, ‘Justifying Limitations on the Freedom of Expression’ (2021) 22(1) Human Rights Review 91. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s12142-020-00608-8.pdf

G Kanellis, ‘Freedom of Speech vs. Hate Speech in European Law: A Balancing Act’ in Hate Speech in European Law: A Balancing Act (2 March 2025). https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm?abstractid=5165261

G Kanellis, Freedom of Speech vs. Hate Speech in European Law: A Balancing Act (2025). https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm?abstractid=5165261

G Palombella, ‘Non-Arbitrariness, Rule of Law and the “Margin of Appreciation”: Comments on Andreas Follesdal’ (2021) 10(1) Global Constitutionalism 139. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/global-constitutionalism/article/nonarbitrariness-rule-of-law-and-the-margin-of-appreciation-comments-on-andreas-follesdal/B0FAF27A747EE30287B3F05C8C3C8EB7

GB Mensah, A Addy and PO Frimpong, ‘Comparative Legal Analysis of the Medical Negligence Landscape: The Ghanaian and Commonwealth Criminal Jurisprudence’ (2023) 136 Journal of Law, Policy and Globalization 21. https://www.academia.edu/download/118622440/63528.pdf

H Davis, Human Rights Law Directions (Oxford University Press 2021). https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=o8UqEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=H+Davis,+Human+Rights+Law+Directions+(Oxford+University+Press+2021).&ots=JX9TNl-_YH&sig=wd70WRLJRgxW7cMUSFGmSVjZHiQ

H Fenwick, ‘Freedom of Expression and Human Rights: Interrogating the Focus at Strasbourg on Political Expression Under Article 10 ECHR’ in The Routledge Companion to Freedom of Expression and Censorship (Routledge 2023) 324. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780429262067-34/freedom-expression-human-rights-helen-fenwick

H Fenwick, ‘Raab’s Bill of Rights and the Challenges Inherent in Attempting a Statutory Re-Balancing of Articles 8 and 10 ECHR’ (2023) 15(1) Journal of Media Law 1. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17577632.2023.2213914

I Turner, ‘Criminalising (Hateful) Extremism in the UK: Critical Reflections from Free Speech’ (2023) (34) Journal for Deradicalization 145. https://jd.journals.publicknowledgeproject.org/jd/index.php/jd/article/download/715/413

J Bacevic, ‘No Such Thing as Free Speech? Performativity, Free Speech, and Academic Freedom in the UK’ (2024) Law and Critique 1. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10978-023-09373-2.pdf

J Bosland and J Townend, ‘Reporting Crime in the Wake of the Human Rights Act 1998: Privacy, Criminal Justice, and the Media in England & Wales’ in Privacy, Technology, and the Criminal Process (Routledge 2023) 242. https://sussex.figshare.com/articles/chapter/Reporting_crime_in_the_wake_of_the_Human_Rights_Act_1998_privacy_criminal_justice_and_the_media_in_England_Wales/23493470/1/files/41201645.pdf

J Gerards, General Principles of the European Convention on Human Rights (Cambridge University Press 2023). https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=LVDIEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=J+Gerards,+General+Principles+of+the+European+Convention+on+Human+Rights+(Cambridge+University+Press+2023).&ots=5oGO94XJ5c&sig=UPLbcWsRN263epbQHZBnzYjYfGU

J Kapelańska-Pręgowska and M Pucelj, ‘Freedom of Expression and Hate Speech: Human Rights Standards and Their Application in Poland and Slovenia’ (2023) 12(4) Laws 64. https://www.mdpi.com/2075-471X/12/4/64

J Kulesza, ‘Free Speech, Artistic Expression and Blasphemy Laws within the ECHR Margin of Appreciation’ in Law, Language and the Courtroom (Routledge 2021) 160. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781003153771-14/free-speech-artistic-expression-blasphemy-laws-within-echr-margin-appreciation-joanna-kulesza

J McGarry and S Spence, ‘Response to the Joint Committee on Human Rights Call for Evidence on the Government’s Independent Human Rights Act Review’ (2021). http://eprints.staffs.ac.uk/6877/3/Government_review_of_the_HRA.pdf

J Mchangama and N Alkiviadou, ‘Hate Speech and the European Court of Human Rights: Whatever Happened to the Right to Offend, Shock or Disturb?’ (2021) 21(4) Human Rights Law Review 1008. https://futurefreespeech.org/human-rights-law-review-hate-speech-and-the-european-court-of-human-rights-whatever-happened-to-the-right-to-offend-shock-or-disturb/

J Sjøberg, European Convention of Human Rights and the Protection of Private Life, Freedom of Expression and Access to Information in a Digital Age (2023). https://www.theseus.fi/handle/10024/792774

J Stajnko, D Siter and LM Tomažič, ‘Discrimination, Freedom of Expression and Two Concepts of Liberty: Assessing European Legislation Criminalizing Hate Speech’ (2024) 64(2) Hungarian Journal of Legal Studies 288. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Daniel-Siter-2/publication/379204616_Discrimination_freedom_of_expression_and_two_concepts_of_liberty_Assessing_European_legislation_criminalizing_hate_speech/links/66a7a57a4433ad480e8458d2/Discrimination-freedom-of-expression-and-two-concepts-of-liberty-Assessing-European-legislation-criminalizing-hate-speech.pdf

J Szegda and G Tylec, ‘The Level of Legal Security of Citizen Journalists and Social Media Users Participating in Public Debate: Standards Developed in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the European Court of Justice (ECJ)’ (2022) 47 Computer Law & Security Review 105740. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0267364922000838

J Wadham and others, Blackstone's Guide to the Human Rights Act 1998 (Oxford University Press 2024). https://academic.oup.com/book/56479

JA Gutiérrez-Fons, ‘The Margin of Appreciation in the Case Law of the Court of Justice: Proportionality and Levels of Fundamental Rights Protection’ in Fundamental Rights Challenges: Horizontal Effectiveness, Rule of Law and Margin of National Appreciation (Springer International Publishing 2021) 231. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-72798-7_12