16.
in the Respondent State has suggested that the impugned interference with freedom of expression could be removed without serious adverse consequences; and of the breadth of the restriction upon freedom of expression the greater the breadth, the closer the scrutiny called for: Sunday Times case, paragraphs 59, 60, and 63.
-
(9) The greater the public interest in unfettered communication of the relevant matters, the more difficult it will be
be for the State to justify the restrictions it has imposed: Sunday Times case, paragraph 65. Indeed, where the public has 'a vital interest in knowing' what the State has decided to prevent being communicated, the State needs to show that it is 'absolutely certain' that free expression would have the adverse consequences alleged by the State: Sunday Times case, paragraph 66.
(10) Another relevant factor is the practice of other States parties to the Convention. If the Respondent State's practice is unusually restrictive in comparison with the practice in the other States parties, this will obviously increase the prospects
the prospects of establishing a breach. If the restraints upon free expression are 'sanctions and preventive measures of an unusual kind the question of their justification
has to be considered with special care': De Becker, Report of the Commission of 8th January 1960, paragraph 263.
...
I should expect the following further factors to be regarded as relevant:
-
(1) the type of media through which the communication is expressed it probably being easier to justify restrictions in relation to communication which is directed into the home (for example, by way of
of television) than in relation to communications which occur at a political meeting in a public hall or through a newspaper; and
(ii) the type of information, idea, or opinion which would be communicated but for the restriction imposed by the State. It is probable that the European Court would apply a scale of
protected
expression,
with political,
14