Back

Themes: Freedom of speech Denmark

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, 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.

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

Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

The European 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, Jens Jersild's conviction for his work had been disproportionate and violated his right to free speech.

Follow-up

In 1994 Denmark’s highest court applied the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights 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 Jens Jersild was reopened.

Additional information

Themes:

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 the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. Her case was then re-opened and she won compensation.

Themes: Freedom of speech Germany

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 Zoran was fined more than eight average monthly salaries. The European court ruled that this had been unreasonable, violating Zoran's right to free speech. The Supreme Court of Serbia took steps to protect freedom of expression in such circumstances.

Themes: Freedom of speech Serbia

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, José Manuel and his employer were both found guilty of criminal defamation in the Portuguese courts.

Themes: Freedom of speech Portugal

Read more