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' is synonymous neither with
'indispensable' nor with the looser test of 'reasonable' or
'desirable'. What the test of necessity connotes 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,
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 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 on the State) is 'whether the interference
complained of corresponded to a 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