Back

Reforms to protect media freedom after a journalist was convicted for a report about extremists

Jersild v. Denmark  | 1994

Reforms to protect media freedom after a journalist was convicted for a report about extremists

The punishment of a journalist for assisting in the dissemination of statements made by another person in an interview would seriously hamper the contribution of the press to discussion of matters of public interest and should not be envisaged unless there are particularly strong reasons for doing so.

Judgment of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, 23rd September 1994

Background

Jens Jersild is a journalist. He filmed a news report about an extremist youth group in Denmark. The report aimed to highlight the problem of racism, focusing on individuals, their mentality and social background. In the report, extremists made highly insulting remarks about ethnic minorities. There was then an interview with a local social worker, who linked the youths’ racist attitudes to a lack of economic opportunities and a criminal environment.

Mr Jersild was convicted of helping to spread racist remarks. He was fined 1,000 Danish kroner.

Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

The court found that the report had sought to expose and analyse individuals who represented a social problem. It had not sought to spread racist values, but instead drew public attention to a matter of wide concern, whilst presenting the racists as antisocial extremists.

There may be some cases where violent hate speech must be punished. However, in the circumstances, Mr Jersild’s conviction for his work had been disproportionate and violated his right to free speech.

Follow-up

In 1994 Denmark’s Supreme Court applied Strasbourg case law to cases concerning media freedom. Together with new legislation, this increased the power of the Danish courts to protect journalists’ free speech.

The criminal case against Mr Jersild was reopened.


Related examples

Nurse compensated after being fired for whistleblowing

Brigitte Heinisch was a geriatric nurse. She claimed that practices in the old people’s home where she worked were putting patients at risk. After she made her allegations public, she was fired. Yet, the German courts found that her dismissal was lawful - so Mrs Heinisch took her case to Strasbourg. Her case was then re-opened and she won compensation.

Read more

Justice for man made to pay huge fine for publishing criticism of a public official

Zoran Lepojić wrote an article saying that a mayor had wasted public money. The mayor successfully brought defamation charges, and Mr Lepojić was fined more than 8 average monthly salaries. The Strasbourg court ruled that this had been unreasonable, violating Mr Lepojić’s right to free speech. The Supreme Court of Serbia took steps to protect freedom of expression in such circumstances.

Read more

Journalist convicted for asking questions wins free speech case at European court

In a report on alleged corruption in Portuguese football, José Manuel Colaço Mestre asked questions to an interviewee about the dual role played by Mr Pinto de Costa, who was then both Chairman of FC Porto and President of the Portuguese Football League. Because of these questions, Mr Colaço Mestre and his employer were both found guilty of criminal defamation in the Portuguese courts.

Read more

Senator put in prison for criticising the government

Senator Miguel Castells wrote an article claiming that the government was failing to investigate a series of murders. He was convicted of insulting the government and sentenced to a year in prison. The European court ruled that his right to free speech had been violated. The Spanish Constitutional Court then developed its case law to provide greater protection to free speech in Spain.

Read more

Newspaper’s free speech victory leads to reforms

In 1988 the local newspaper Bladet Tromsø published claims by a government inspector alleging misconduct by certain seal hunters. The Norwegian courts found the newspaper liable for defamation, saying that it had relied too heavily on government reports. The Strasbourg court ruled that this violated the paper’s right to free speech – leading to reforms to protect freedom of expression.

Read more

Justice for animal rights campaigners who had pamphlets seized by police

Elina Goussev and Michael Marenk were protesting against the fur trade. Police searched their homes and seized campaign materials. The Strasbourg court ruled that this had breached their right to free speech, as the seizure had not been clearly justified by Finnish law. After the case had been submitted to the court, reforms were made to prevent arbitrary seizures.

Read more

Justice for man who was fined for writing an article

Isaak Grinberg wrote an opinion article criticising a local governor. The governor sued Mr Grinberg for defamation, making him pay a fine. The Strasbourg court ruled that Mr Grinberg had been punished for giving a value judgment about a public figure. This violated his right to free speech. Mr Grinberg was awarded €1,120 in compensation.

Read more

Greater protection for the media after journalist fined for refusing to reveal the identity of his source

Journalist William Goodwin was given leaked information about a company. The company wanted to sue the source of the leak - but Mr Goodwin refused to reveal their identity. The UK courts fined Mr Goodwin 5,000 pounds for contempt of court. The Strasbourg court ruled this had violated his right to receive and give out information.

Read more

Legal challenge brings an end to the state monopoly on TV and radio

During the 1970s and 1980s, various Austrians wanted to set up local TV or radio stations. However, Austrian law banned them from doing so, as it gave the Austrian Broadcasting Company a monopoly. The Strasbourg court ruled that the ban was disproportionate and violated the right to free speech. The judgment led to the opening up of broadcasting regulations.

Read more

Journalist wins freedom of speech case in Strasbourg

Björk Eidsdottir is a journalist who claimed that the owner of a strip club was making his staff work as prostitutes. The issue was a matter of public interest, and her article was published in good faith and with due diligence. Nevertheless, the club owner sued Ms Eidsdottir for defamation and won. The Strasbourg court held that this had breached the journalist’s right to free speech.

Read more

Fairer television coverage for small political parties

Small political parties received virtually no television news coverage, and were banned from TV advertising. The Strasbourg court ruled that this left the Pensioner’s Party no way of transmitting its message on TV, violating its right to freedom speech. Reforms were made to political broadcasting rules, requiring the national broadcaster to include smaller parties in its TV coverage.

Read more

Reforms made after pensioner given unreasonable punishments

Sofija Tešić received a monthly pension equivalent to 170 euros. After she lost a defamation case, every month two-thirds of her pension was taken to pay off her debt – leaving her without money to pay for medication. The Strasbourg court ruled that this had been disproportionate. The Serbian courts changed their case law to limit defamation awards, and enforcement proceedings were also...

Read more

Reforms made after man convicted for waving a satirical placard

Hervé Eon waved a satirical sign at President Sarkozy. He was then charged with offending the President of France, a crime dating from the 19th Century. Mr Eon was convicted and given a suspended fine. The Strasbourg court ruled that this had breached Mr Eon’s right to free speech. The offence of insulting the President of France was abolished later that year.

Read more