The core principles
In Handyside v United Kingdom, App no 5493/72, 7 December 1976; Series A no 24 ECtHR · persuasive in Irish courts the Court held that freedom of expression extends to ideas that offend, shock or disturb, yet found no breach: there was no uniform European conception of morals. In Sunday Times v United Kingdom (No 1), App no 6538/74, 26 April 1979; Series A no 30 ECtHR · persuasive in Irish courts it said “necessary” is not synonymous with “indispensable” but is not as flexible as “reasonable” or “desirable”.
Political speech and the press
In Lingens v Austria, App no 9815/82, 8 July 1986; Series A no 103 ECtHR · persuasive in Irish courts the Court held that the limits of acceptable criticism are wider for a politician than for a private individual, and that requiring a journalist to prove the truth of a value judgment infringes freedom of opinion itself.
In Goodwin v United Kingdom, App no 17488/90, 27 March 1996 ECtHR · persuasive in Irish courts the Grand Chamber held that an order to disclose a journalist’s source is compatible with Article 10 only if justified by an overriding requirement in the public interest.
Open Door and Dublin Well Woman v Ireland
In Open Door and Dublin Well Woman v Ireland, App nos 14234/88 and 14235/88, 29 October 1992 ECtHR · persuasive in Irish courts a perpetual injunction restrained two counselling agencies from giving pregnant women information about abortion facilities abroad. The restriction pursued the aim of protecting morals and the State had a wide margin, but its absolute nature made it over broad and disproportionate. There was a breach of Article 10, by fifteen votes to eight.
Murphy v Ireland
In Murphy v Ireland, App no 44179/98, 10 July 2003; ECHR 2003-IX ECtHR · persuasive in Irish courts the statutory ban on religious advertising on radio and television was upheld. A wider margin applies to matters liable to offend intimate convictions in the sphere of religion, and a blanket ban avoided the difficulty of filtering such advertisements fairly. That Act has since been repealed with savers, and the rule now appears in s 41(4) of the Broadcasting Act 2009.
Independent News and Media v Ireland
In Independent News and Media and Independent Newspapers Ireland Ltd v Ireland, App no 55120/00, 16 June 2005 ECtHR · persuasive in Irish courts a jury’s IR£300,000 libel award, upheld by the Supreme Court, was challenged as disproportionate. The question was whether there were adequate domestic safeguards against disproportionate awards. The Supreme Court’s appellate review had applied a proportionality standard, and there was no violation. Since 1 March 2026, High Court defamation actions brought on or after that date are tried without a jury, under s 4 of the Defamation (Amendment) Act 2026.
Key authorities
The leading authorities relied on in the source module (the full case table is in the module):
- Handyside v United Kingdom, App no 5493/72, 7 December 1976; Series A no 24 ECtHR · persuasive in Irish courts — Ideas that offend, shock or disturb; margin in matters of morals.
- Sunday Times v United Kingdom (No 1), App no 6538/74, 26 April 1979; Series A no 30 ECtHR · persuasive in Irish courts — Prescribed by law; the meaning of necessary.
- Lingens v Austria, App no 9815/82, 8 July 1986; Series A no 103 ECtHR · persuasive in Irish courts — Wider limits of criticism for politicians; facts and value judgments.
- Goodwin v United Kingdom, App no 17488/90, 27 March 1996 ECtHR · persuasive in Irish courts — Protection of journalistic sources.
- Open Door and Dublin Well Woman v Ireland, App nos 14234/88 and 14235/88, 29 October 1992 ECtHR · persuasive in Irish courts — Absolute restraint on abortion information disproportionate.
- Murphy v Ireland, App no 44179/98, 10 July 2003; ECHR 2003-IX ECtHR · persuasive in Irish courts — Ban on religious broadcast advertising within the margin.
- Independent News and Media and Independent Newspapers Ireland Ltd v Ireland, App no 55120/00, 16 June 2005 ECtHR · persuasive in Irish courts — Appellate safeguards against disproportionate libel awards.
Key statutory references: European Convention on Human Rights, Article 10; Constitution of Ireland, Article 40.6.1°(i); Broadcasting Act 2009, s 41(4); Defamation Act 2009, s 31; Defamation (Amendment) Act 2026, ss 4 and 5.
Exam focus
- Is there expression, and an interference by a public authority?
- Prescribed by law, and which Article 10(2) aim?
- What type of speech is it? Political speech gets the strongest protection.
- Necessity: pressing social need, proportionality, chilling effect, severity of the sanction.
- For Ireland, check the current statute: the 1988 broadcasting ban and the defamation jury rules have both changed.
LawShortcut uses a subject-by-subject legal-content review focused on substantive accuracy, authority, Irish-law relevance and exam application. Law can change; verify the current position before relying on these notes.
The full, exam-ready version
The full Article 10 module: the structure, political speech and the press, sources, the balance with privacy, morals and general measures, online intermediaries and the Irish cases.
See the Human Rights Law modules →Points that come up
Does Article 10 protect offensive speech?
Yes. Handyside v United Kingdom held that it applies to information and ideas that offend, shock or disturb, though restrictions may still be justified under Article 10(2).
What did Open Door and Dublin Well Woman v Ireland decide?
That a perpetual injunction restraining counselling agencies from giving information about abortion abroad was disproportionate, because of its absolute nature, and breached Article 10.
Is the ban on religious advertising still Irish law?
Yes, in a new statute. The ban upheld in Murphy v Ireland was in the Radio and Television Act 1988, since repealed; the rule now appears in s 41(4) of the Broadcasting Act 2009.
New notes by email, before each sitting
Get the free one-page exam-answer cheat sheet by email, plus new case explainers as they go live and a heads-up before each sitting. No spam.