Court: European Court of Human Rights
Decision Date: 1976
Case Reference: Handyside v. United Kingdom (5493/72)
Handyside v. United Kingdom is a seminal case decided by the European Court of Human Rights in 1976, which established significant principles regarding the balance between freedom of expression and the protection of public morals, particularly in the context of materials deemed harmful to minors.
The case also contributed to the development of the margin of appreciation doctrine, which gives states discretion in matters of public morality. This case is often cited in subsequent jurisprudence on the limitations of free speech in democratic societies.
Facts of Handyside v. United Kingdom
- Defendant: Richard Handyside, the owner of “Stage 1” publishers.
- Book in Question: The Little Red Schoolbook written by Søren Hansen and Jesper Jensen, which was first published in Denmark in 1969. Handyside acquired the British rights to publish the book. The book, aimed at teenagers, covered topics such as sex, masturbation, homosexuality, pornography, and abortion.
- The book was designed to be a straightforward, educational guide intended to inform teenagers about various aspects of sexuality, and it was published in multiple countries, including Belgium, France, Germany, and Sweden.
- Handyside sent out several hundred review copies of the book to various national and local newspapers, educational journals, and medical publications, along with a press release. Advertisements were also placed for the book, generating significant press attention, both positive and negative.
- Seizure of Copies: Following complaints about the book’s content, the Director of Public Prosecutions instructed the Metropolitan Police to investigate whether the book violated the Obscene Publications Act. As a result, 1,069 copies of the book, along with associated promotional materials such as leaflets, posters, and correspondence, were seized on 31 March 1971. An additional 139 copies were seized the following day. By the time of the seizures, approximately 17,000 copies had already been distributed to the public.
- Charges: On 8 April 1971, Handyside was charged under the Obscene Publications Act for possessing obscene publications for publication for gain. Handyside ceased further distribution of the book and advised bookshops to stop selling it. However, by then, nearly all copies had been sold.
- Conviction: On 1 July 1971, Handyside was found guilty of both charges and was fined £25 for each summons. Additionally, he was ordered to pay £110 in costs. His appeal to the domestic courts was unsuccessful.
Proceedings Before the European Court of Human Rights
- Application to the Court: Handyside, challenging his conviction, filed an application to the European Court of Human Rights in 1972. He claimed that the conviction violated his right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
- European Commission of Human Rights: In 1975, the European Commission of Human Rights adopted its report on the case, concluding that no violation of the Convention rights had occurred. Specifically, the Commission found no violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression), Article 17 (protection from arbitrary restrictions on rights), and Protocol 1, Article 1 (protection of property rights).
- Court’s Jurisdiction: In 1976, the case was referred to the plenary Court, which then issued its ruling on the matter.
Handyside v. United Kingdom Judgement
In its judgement, the European Court of Human Rights held, by 13 votes to 1, that the interference with Handyside’s freedom of expression was justified and did not violate Article 10 of the European Convention. The Court applied the margin of appreciation doctrine and concluded that the restrictions on freedom of expression were lawful, pursuing a legitimate aim, and necessary in a democratic society.
Key Aspects of the Judgement:
The Margin of Appreciation Doctrine
The Court established that, in matters concerning public morality, particularly when the protection of children is involved, national authorities are in a better position than the international judiciary to assess what is appropriate or necessary. This is because state authorities are directly in contact with the vital forces of their countries and are better able to determine the precise content of public moral standards.
The margin of appreciation doctrine, developed in this case, allows states to have a certain degree of flexibility when deciding on restrictions to rights, as long as these restrictions are within the boundaries of international law. This doctrine is particularly relevant in matters of cultural and moral values, where states may adopt different stances based on their particular context and societal norms.
Freedom of Expression and Its Limits
The Court reaffirmed the principle that freedom of expression is fundamental to a democratic society. However, it emphasised that freedom of expression is not absolute. According to Article 10(2) of the ECHR, restrictions can be imposed on the exercise of this freedom if they are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society to achieve one of the legitimate aims listed, such as the protection of public morals.
The Court found that the book in question was aimed primarily at children and adolescents, and while it provided factual information that could be beneficial, it also contained passages that could be seen as encouraging minors to engage in activities deemed inappropriate or potentially harmful. The Court reasoned that it was within the state’s discretion to regulate such material to protect children from exposure to potentially harmful influences.
Legitimate Aim
The Court held that the restriction on the distribution of The Little Red Schoolbook was aimed at the legitimate purpose of protecting public morals. The case concerned a book that provided graphic details on sensitive sexual topics, which, according to the state, could be harmful to young people, especially those who might not yet have the emotional or psychological maturity to understand the content.
Necessity in a Democratic Society
The Court applied the test of necessity, which is not synonymous with indispensability. It held that the restriction on Handyside’s freedom of expression was necessary to protect the public morals, specifically the protection of children from harmful content. The Court also found that the interference was proportionate to the legitimate aim of protecting minors and did not go beyond what was necessary.
The Court noted that there was no European consensus on how to regulate materials concerning sexual education for minors, and thus states should be allowed a margin of appreciation to regulate such matters in a way that suits their societal norms.
Property Rights
The Court unanimously ruled that Handyside’s property rights under Article 1 of Protocol 1 were not violated by the seizure of the books. The Court held that the seizure of the books was a lawful act aimed at protecting public morals and that the interference with Handyside’s property rights was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.
Conclusion
The Court concluded that there was no violation of Handyside’s rights under Article 10 of the ECHR. The interference with his freedom of expression was deemed justified as it pursued the legitimate aim of protecting public morals, particularly in relation to minors. The Court further clarified the application of the margin of appreciation doctrine, granting states discretion in regulating content that pertains to public morals, while emphasising that such restrictions must meet the test of necessity in a democratic society.
