Is Veronica Connolly's right to free speech infringed if she is convicted of sending malicious communications by posting pictures of aborted foetuses to pharmacists as a protest against their providing the morning after pill?
The court has, so far, ruled not. I say "so far" because it is believed there will be an appeal of today's decision.
One thing only is clear about this case. There should be an appeal. Today's decision has unsatisfactory aspects that need to be clarified at a higher level; eventually, perhaps, by the European Court of Justice.
For instance, Lord Justice Dyson said this:
Can a right to free speech be limited or varied according to the audience?
Article 9 of the Human Rights Convention provides specific protection of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion and the right to express those views.
Article 9(2) essentially allows restrictions where they are for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
Article 10 provides protection of a more general right to freedom of expression i.e. not resticted to the more specic matters in Article 9 (although, given the inclusion of the word "thought" in Article 9, you may have difficulty thinking up examples where both articles are not engaged simultaneously).
Article 10(2) includes a similar reference to the rights of others as does 9(2) but is qualified by the important distinction that the limitation must be necessary in a democratic society.
This, to me, is the key. I am a fairly old fashioned believer in free speech. You can say anything you like. This should be subject only to the laws relating to defamation but these only create private rights of action that should not restrict you from saying what you want to say in the first place (at your own risk) and not a criminal sanction*. That is the core concept in defining a democratic society. It is so fundamental that this decision must be appealed and that is totally regardless of Veronica Connolly's views about abortion and the morning after pill and whether or not you do or do not agee with them.
This is an important case and you can read it here.
*Yes I am aware that we have a law relating to criminal libel. How many prosecutions, annually, do you think there are?
The court has, so far, ruled not. I say "so far" because it is believed there will be an appeal of today's decision.
One thing only is clear about this case. There should be an appeal. Today's decision has unsatisfactory aspects that need to be clarified at a higher level; eventually, perhaps, by the European Court of Justice.
For instance, Lord Justice Dyson said this:
In my judgment, the persons who worked in the three pharmacies which were targeted by Mrs Connolly had the right not to have sent to them material of the kind that she sent when it was her purpose, or one of her purposes, to cause distress or anxiety to the recipient. Just as members of the public have the right to be protected from such material (sent for such a purpose) in the privacy of their homes, so too, in general terms, do people in the workplace. But it must depend on the circumstances. The more offensive the material, the greater the likelihood that such persons have the right to be protected from receiving it. But the recipient may not be a person who needs such protection. Thus, for example, the position of a doctor who routinely performs abortions who receives photographs similar to those that were sent by Mrs Connolly in this case may well be materially different from that of employees in a pharmacy which happens to sell the "morning after pill". It seems to me that such a doctor would be less likely to find the photographs grossly offensive than the pharmacist's employees. To take a different example, suppose that it were Government policy to support abortion. A member of the Cabinet who spoke publicly in support of abortion and who received such photographs in his office in Westminster might well stand on a different footing from a member of the public who received them in the privacy of his home or at his place of work.
Can a right to free speech be limited or varied according to the audience?
Article 9 of the Human Rights Convention provides specific protection of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion and the right to express those views.
Article 9(2) essentially allows restrictions where they are for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
Article 10 provides protection of a more general right to freedom of expression i.e. not resticted to the more specic matters in Article 9 (although, given the inclusion of the word "thought" in Article 9, you may have difficulty thinking up examples where both articles are not engaged simultaneously).
Article 10(2) includes a similar reference to the rights of others as does 9(2) but is qualified by the important distinction that the limitation must be necessary in a democratic society.
This, to me, is the key. I am a fairly old fashioned believer in free speech. You can say anything you like. This should be subject only to the laws relating to defamation but these only create private rights of action that should not restrict you from saying what you want to say in the first place (at your own risk) and not a criminal sanction*. That is the core concept in defining a democratic society. It is so fundamental that this decision must be appealed and that is totally regardless of Veronica Connolly's views about abortion and the morning after pill and whether or not you do or do not agee with them.
This is an important case and you can read it here.
*Yes I am aware that we have a law relating to criminal libel. How many prosecutions, annually, do you think there are?
1 comment:
disgusting
Post a Comment