Jersild v Denmark
Convicting a journalist for broadcasting racist remarks made by youths he interviewed breached article 10, because the programme was a serious contribution to public debate about racism.
Facts
Mr Jersild, a Danish television journalist, made a documentary about a group of young people known as the Greenjackets, who held racist views. The programme included an interview in which members of the group made grossly offensive racist remarks. The young people were convicted of making racist statements, and Mr Jersild was convicted of aiding and abetting them, by broadcasting their remarks.
Legal principle
The Grand Chamber held that there had been a violation of article 10. The court said that the programme, taken as a whole, was intended to expose, analyse and explain the views of the group, and not to propagate racist ideas, and that it dealt with a matter of great public concern. News reporting based on interviews constitutes one of the most important means whereby the press is able to play its vital role of public watchdog, and the punishment of a journalist for assisting in the dissemination of statements made by another person would seriously hamper the contribution of the press to discussion of matters of public interest. The court emphasised that the remarks of the youths themselves were not protected.
Related cases on religion, expression, assembly and association (articles 9 to 11)
- Attorney General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No 2) [1990] 1 AC 109
- Demir and Baykara v Turkey (2009) 48 EHRR 54
- Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd [1993] AC 534
- Director of Public Prosecutions v Ziegler [2021] UKSC 23, [2022] AC 408
- Eweida v United Kingdom (2013) 57 EHRR 8
- Handyside v United Kingdom (1979) 1 EHRR 737
- Kokkinakis v Greece (1994) 17 EHRR 397
- Kudrevičius v Lithuania (2016) 62 EHRR 34
Studying human rights law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
