European Court of Human Rights
7 December 1976
Facts
The applicant, Mr. Handyside, was the director of an English publishing firm. In 1971 this firm published a book called “The Little Red Schoolbook” aimed to educate teenagers about sex (on issues such as masturbation, contraceptives, menstruation, pornography, abortion etc.). After receiving many complaints arguing that the book was obscene, the police confiscated it and Mr Handyside was convicted of possessing obscene publications for gain.
Complaint
The applicant claimed to be the victim of a violation of Article 10 of the Convention.
Court’s ruling
The Court held that the applicant’s conviction constituted an interference with his right to freedom of expression but ruled that this interference had been prescribed by law and pursued the legitimate aim of protecting morals. The issue was whether the interference had been necessary in a democratic society and proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.
Because there was no European consensus on the protection of public morals, the Court considered that the states had a margin of appreciation in interpreting whether a particular measure was necessary. The Court further stated that it was necessary to pay attention to the principles that characterise a democratic society. For example, the Court held that freedom of expression is applicable not only to information or ideas that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population.
In the present case, the Court found that while the book contained purely factual information that was generally correct, it also included passages that young people could have interpreted as an encouragement to indulge in precocious activities harmful to them or even to commit certain criminal offences. Also, the fact that no proceedings had been formed against the revised edition suggested that the authorities had limited themselves to what was strictly necessary. The Court therefore found that there had been no violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression.