Search for: "State v. Handyside"
Results 1 - 14
of 14
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Jan 2013, 12:16 pm
The European Court of Justice noted about Article 10 § 2 in the Handyside v. [read post]
7 Jan 2013, 12:16 pm
The European Court of Justice noted about Article 10 § 2 in the Handyside v. [read post]
11 Oct 2012, 4:04 pm
In particular he quoted the seminal ECHR case of Handyside (1976) 1 EHRR 737 which says that freedom of expression includes the right to say things that "offend, shock or disturb the state or any sector of the population".Why then, we might ask, is s 127 drafted so widely? [read post]
1 Oct 2012, 10:42 am
Indeed, six years later, the European Court of Human Rights held in Kydonis v. [read post]
Northern Ireland District Judge acquits Pastor of “gross offence” against Muslims – Rosalind English
17 Feb 2016, 4:40 pm
Pastor McConnell gave evidence as to his background and stated he became a Christian at the age of 8 and had been a full time preacher for 60 years. [read post]
18 Jun 2010, 5:02 am
In Sciacca v. [read post]
22 Dec 2015, 4:07 pm
Any order requiring any sort of journalistic material to be handed over to the state engages the right to freedom of expression of publishers and broadcasters under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and will amount to an interference for the purposes of Article 10 (see eg Handyside v United Kingdom and Tillack v Belgium). [read post]
16 Jul 2014, 7:00 am
(In cases like Handyside v. [read post]
21 May 2017, 2:34 pm
The effect of Article 15 can be seen in the ECJ decisions of SABAM v Scarlet and SABAM v Netlog prohibiting content filtering injunctions, and in Arnold J’s Cartier judgment itself:“If ISPs could be required to block websites without having actual knowledge of infringing activity, that would be tantamount to a general obligation to monitor. [read post]
21 May 2017, 2:34 pm
The effect of Article 15 can be seen in the ECJ decisions of SABAM v Scarlet and SABAM v Netlog prohibiting content filtering injunctions, and in Arnold J’s Cartier judgment itself:“If ISPs could be required to block websites without having actual knowledge of infringing activity, that would be tantamount to a general obligation to monitor. [read post]
25 Jul 2012, 6:16 pm
The proportionality of this balance is judged differently in different member States within the Council of Europe. [read post]
4 Mar 2021, 4:09 pm
Furthermore, in Handyside v United Kingdom Strasbourg accepted that freedom of speech applies to views which shock and offend and which are heartily disapproved of by the recipient [49]. [read post]
22 May 2017, 4:09 pm
The effect of Article 15 can be seen in the ECJ decisions of SABAM v Scarlet and SABAM v Netlog prohibiting content filtering injunctions, and in Arnold J’s Cartier judgment itself: “If ISPs could be required to block websites without having actual knowledge of infringing activity, that would be tantamount to a general obligation to monitor. [read post]
5 Nov 2021, 11:46 am
Roche v. [read post]
