Free Speech & Authorities

 25 Aug 2025

Article 10: Free Expression as Europe’s Anchor

When religion and free speech collide, Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights is the reference point every authority must understand. It is not just a legal clause—it is the backbone of democratic culture.

What Article 10 Says

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This includes freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority.

2. Restrictions are allowed only when “necessary in a democratic society” for reasons such as national security, prevention of crime, or protection of the rights of others. Those protections and attitudes must be considered in multiple ways from different perspectives.

The Core Principle

The European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly stressed: free expression includes the right to offend, shock, or disturb. Democracies do not protect citizens from discomfort; they protect citizens’ right to speak.

Key Rulings that Shape Authority Practice

Handyside v. UK (1976): Established that free expression covers ideas “that offend, shock or disturb.”

Leroy v. France (2008): Cartoonist fined for glorifying 9/11; Court allowed it, showing limits when speech glorifies violence.

E.S. v. Austria (2018): Court allowed restrictions on speech deemed to stir intolerance, criticised as too deferential to religious feeling.

Overall Pattern: Restrictions are narrow exceptions. The default is protection.

Implications for Public Authorities

Police:

Your role is to protect people, not beliefs. If protests, art, or speech cause anger, the duty is to secure public order without silencing the speaker. Violence must be contained; expression must be defended

Teachers and Schools:

Showing material critical of religion (e.g. caricatures) is protected under Article 10. The law is on the teacher’s side. Fear of “offence” cannot erase curriculum content. Removing such content risks undermining the very values schools are meant to transmit.

Local Government & Policy-Makers:

Article 10 sets the floor. Local accommodations (e.g. prayer spaces, cultural sensitivity) cannot override the baseline right to open discussion and critique. Avoiding controversy is not a legal defence.

Judiciary and Law Enforcement Training:

Officials should be trained to distinguish between hate speech (which incites violence or discrimination against people) and blasphemy or criticism of ideas (which is protected). This clarity is vital for trust and consistency.

Lessons Learned from Past Failures

In the UK “Trojan Horse” schools affair, hesitancy to intervene for fear of accusations of Islamophobia delayed action. Article 10 should remind officials that upholding secular education is not bias—it is law.

In France, the murder of Samuel Paty revealed what happens when teachers are left unprotected. Article 10 must be lived in practice, not just cited in Strasbourg rulings.

The Takeaway for Authority

Article 10 is not optional. It obliges states to defend free expression—even when unpopular or offensive to religious groups. Authorities who yield to fear or intimidation allow the erosion of the very freedoms they are tasked to protect.

Simple Rule of Thumb:

Protect the person, not the idea. *Protection can mean 

1. Encouraging personal agency and

 2. personal empowerment through health and fitness therapy and training. 

Blanket government imposition of 'protection' from free speech will always backfire.

Punish violence, not speech.

Llm & liz lucy robillard