Abstract
In Animal Defenders International v UK, the 17-judge Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the UK’s ban on political advertising on television, as applied to an animal rights organisation, did not violate freedom of expression. The Court divided nine votes to eight, with the majority opinion abandoning the Court’s previous ‘strict scrutiny’ review, and laying down a new doctrine for reviewing political advertising bans. This article, first, examines the role the composition of the Grand Chamber played in the outcome of the case. Second, questions the basis of the new doctrine of review. And third, criticises the majority’s treatment of precedent.
Broadcasting law, European Convention on Human Rights, Freedom of expression, Grondrechten, Parliamentary deference, Political advertising, Political speech, Vrijheid van meningsuiting
Bibtex
Article{nokey,
title = {Political Advertising Bans and Freedom of Expression},
author = {Fahy, R.},
url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1534.pdf},
year = {0414},
date = {2015-04-14},
journal = {Greek Public Law Journal},
abstract = {In Animal Defenders International v UK, the 17-judge Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the UK’s ban on political advertising on television, as applied to an animal rights organisation, did not violate freedom of expression. The Court divided nine votes to eight, with the majority opinion abandoning the Court’s previous ‘strict scrutiny’ review, and laying down a new doctrine for reviewing political advertising bans. This article, first, examines the role the composition of the Grand Chamber played in the outcome of the case. Second, questions the basis of the new doctrine of review. And third, criticises the majority’s treatment of precedent.},
keywords = {Broadcasting law, European Convention on Human Rights, Freedom of expression, Grondrechten, Parliamentary deference, Political advertising, Political speech, Vrijheid van meningsuiting},
}