Freedom of speech and public watch dogs, ECtHR Jurisprudence

What principles are established by case law to strike the balance between the
public watch dog role of media and other interests?

By Legesse Tigabu

To begin with, because of the special role played by media or the press as a “public watch
dog”, it is incumbent on it to impart information and ideas on matters of public interest
(Guardian and Observer, Times News papers Ltd, Bladet, Lingens and Castells).1 As
consistently explained by these cases not only the press for example has the task of imparting
information and ideas, rather the public also have the right to receive them.2

But this doesn’t mean that the press is absolutely free to impart any information and in any way
as it likes because there are duties and responsibilities that the press or Medias have to satisfy.
As it could be seen from the above cases, the press is under obligation not to overstep the
bounders set like national security and individual reputation. In particular, as explained in the
Times Newspaper Ltd case, the press is under the duty to act in accordance with the principles
of responsible journalism to make its information accurate and reliable.3 Art 10 of the ECHR
doesn’t guarantee absolutely unlimited freedom of expression for the press even though the
matter may be of public importance. It means that it has to act in accordance with its duties and
responsibilities pursuant to Art 10(2) ECHR.

Here, as the role played by the press i.e. to provide forum for debate on public issues is so
important in a democratic society, then the assessment of limitations on the press will go under
strict standard. In the Bladet case for example, the ECtHR stated that “the court is mindful of
the fact that journalistic freedom also covers possible recourse to a degree of exaggeration, or

1
Cases Guardian and Observer, Times News papers Ltd, Bladet, Lingens and Castells, p. 5, 11,and
(P. 869, 861 and 875, Dorsen) respectively
2
Ibid,p.5, 11, and from Dorsen .(P. 869, 861 and 875) respectively
3
Times Newspapers Ltd case, p. 12
even provocation.”4 The press is also protected under the principle of permissible criticism and
this protection is wider in case of political issues to ensure the “public watch dog” role of the
press. For instance in the Lingenes case, the court said that “freedom of the press affords the
public one of the best means of discovering and forming an opinion of ideas and attitudes of
Political leaders and freedom of political debate is at the very core of the concept of democratic
society”5 and the court also stated that in such political cases the limits of acceptable criticism
are wider. The freedom of expression cases involving the press then will result in a tension
between the interest of the public in open debate on public matters provided by the press on one
hand and national security interests and individual rights on the other hand. In this regard, the
court has decided cases by weighing these conflicting interests on case by case basis. The
Bladet case is notable in this regard as the court has weighed the two interests and finally
decided that the vital public interest in ensuring an informed public debate outweighed the
protection of individual rights in the case. Here, the principle is that, as explained in the Times
Newspapers Ltd case, “particularly strong reasons must be provided for any measure limiting
access to information which the public has the right to receive.”

On the other hand in the case Guardian and Observer on the first period judgment (1986-1987),
the court considering particular circumstances of the case, declared that the “information is
damaging which might be detrimental to the service” and it then decided that such interest
prevails over open public debate interest.

The circumstance of perishability of news was also considered in the cases Guardian and
Observer and Times News papers Ltd in assessing the responsibilities and goodfaith of the
press. In the former case, the court said that prior restraint on press calls for strict scrutiny on
the part of the court in case perishable news are involved as delay in publication, even for short
period of time, may effectively deprive it of all its value and interest.6

Generally, the court uniformly declared that safeguards guaranteed to the press are particularly
important as the press plays significant role in imparting public issues for debate and it also

4
Bladet case
5
Bladet case
6
Guardian and Observer case, p. 6
imposed duties and responsibilities on the press to protect pressing public interests like national
security and reputation of individuals and to oblige the press to provide accurate and reliable
information for the public and to impart information and ideas in good faith.