as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population": Sunday Times Case, paragraph 65.
(2) The adjective 'necessary'
synonymous neither with 'indispensable' nor with the looser test of 'reasonable' or 'desirable'. What the test
test of necessity connotes is
is a requirement that the State establish a 'pressing social need' for the restraint: Sunday Times Case, paragraph 59. (3) The initial responsibility for securing the rights and freedoms lies with the Contracting States, which enjoy a 'margin of appreciation': ibid.
(4) Nevertheless, States do not have an unlimited margin of appreciation. It is for the European Commission and Court of Human Rights to assess whether an interference with freedom of expression exceeds the limit. Hence, 'the domestic margin of appreciation
goes hand in
in hand with
a European
...
supervision': ibid.
(5) The supervision by the Commission and the Court is not limited 'to ascertaining whether a Respondent State exercised its discretion reasonably, carefully and in good faith'. Such conduct is not necessarily in compliance with Article 10(2) of the European Convention [or, mutatis mutandis, of Article 19 paragraph 3 of the ICPR]: Sunday Times case, paragraph 59.
(6) The test to be satisfied by the Respondent State (and the burden is
is on the State) is 'whether the interference complained of corresponded to pressing social need, whether it was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued, whether the reasons given by the national authorities to justify it are relevant and sufficient': Sunday Times case, paragraph 62.
(7) The Court is faced 'not with a choice between two conflicting principles but with a principle of freedom of expression that is subject to a number of exceptions which must be narrowly interpreted': Sunday times case, paragraph 65.
(8) The criterion of 'necessity' requires consideration of the nature of the aim pursued; of whether informed opinion
13