Abstract
In a group of cases in which journalists refused dispersal orders at public assemblies, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that certain governmental actions interfered with freedom of expression. Based on a comparative analysis that provides an analytical critique and new insights in the field of media freedom, this article argues that the application of the ‘strict scrutiny’ perspective could be improved by including a closer look at the risk assessments made by the domestic authorities. The analysis delves into the development of the ECtHR’s case law and highlights the potential problems in guaranteeing protection under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), especially considering the consequences of the approach taken in the Pentikainen Grand Chamber judgment.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
