Handyside v United Kingdom [1976]

Court: European Court of Human Rights

Facts: Richard Handyside was charged and convicted under the Obscene Publications Act 1959 for publishing a book containing sections intended to educate teenagers about sex. Handyside argued that the Act breached his right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Issue: Whether the conviction under the Obscene Publications Act violated Handyside's Article 10 right to freedom of expression.

Held: The Court dismissed the appeal, ruling that there was no breach of Article 10.

Key Judicial Statement: The Court stated, “...whilst the adjective ‘necessary’, within the meaning of Article 10(2), is not synonymous with ‘indispensable’, neither has it the flexibility of such expressions as ‘admissible’, ‘ordinary’, ‘useful’, ‘reasonable’, or ‘desirable’.”

💡Leveluplaw: established important standards for freedom of expression under the ECHR, emphasizing that necessity in proportionality does not require a measure to be indispensable, setting a precedent for future cases regarding the limits of expression.