335:
the distortion of crucial public interest debates and, thereby, the undermining of the democratic process. 118. In addition, the Court considers it important that the prohibition was specifically circumscribed to address the precise risk of distortion the State sought to avoid with the minimum impairment of the right of expression. It only applies therefore to advertising given its inherently partial nature (Murphy, at § 42), to paid advertising given the danger of unequal access based on wealth and to political advertising (as explained at paragraph 99 above) as it was considered to go to the heart of the democratic process. It is also confined to certain media (radio and television) since they are considered to be the most influential and expensive media and to constitute a cornerstone of the regulatory system at issue in the present case. The limits placed on a restriction are important factors in the assessment of its proportionality (Mouvement raëlien suisse v. Switzerland , § 75, cited above). Consequently, a range of alternative media were available to the applicant and these are outlined at paragraph 124 below.
230:. Nor is it achieved if well-endowed interests which are not political parties are able to use the power of the purse to give enhanced prominence to views which may be true or false, attractive to progressive minds or unattractive, beneficial or injurious. The risk is that objects which are essentially political may come to be accepted by the public not because they are shown in public debate to be right but because, by dint of constant repetition, the public has been conditioned to accept them. The rights of others which a restriction on the exercise of the right to free expression may properly be designed to protect must, in my judgment, include a right to be protected against the potential mischief of partial political advertising. 29. I do not think the full strength of this argument was deployed in
298:
abused to entertain us"; "Please help us to stop their suffering by making a donation today"; the final shot is of a monkey in a cage in exactly the same position as the girl was in. It takes little imagination to understand how powerful this would be, much more powerful than a static image on a bill-board or printed page, and beamed into every households in the land where anyone was watching commercial television at the time. It is also clearly part of a campaign for change in the law, and thus prohibited by sections 319(2)(g), 321(2)(b), and 321(3)(b), as well as by sections 319(2)(g) and 321(2)(a), which prohibit any advertising by bodies whose objects are wholly or mainly of a political nature.
236:. And in that case the applicant was seeking to respond, with a wholly inoffensive advertisement, to commercials broadcast by the meat industry... Hypothetical examples spring readily to mind: adverts by well-endowed multi-national companies seeking to thwart or delay action on climate change; adverts by wealthy groups seeking to ban abortion; or, if not among member states of the Council of Europe, adverts by so-called patriotic groups supporting the right of the citizen to bear arms. Parliament was entitled to regard the risk of such adverts as a real danger, none the less so because legislation has up to now prevented its occurrence.
306:. There has to be the same rule for the same kind of advertising, whatever the cause for which it campaigns and whatever the resources of the campaigners. We must not distinguish between causes of which we approve and causes of which we disapprove. Nor in practice can we distinguish between small organisations which have to fight for every penny and rich ones with access to massive sums. Capping or rationing will not work, for the reasons Lord Bingham gives.
226:. This is achieved where, in public discussion, differing views are expressed, contradicted, answered and debated. It is the duty of broadcasters to achieve this object in an impartial way by presenting balanced programmes in which all lawful views may be ventilated. It is not achieved if political parties can, in proportion to their resources, buy unlimited opportunities to advertise in the most effective media, so that elections become little more than an
42:
283:, 2003, p 12). We want everyone to be able to make up their own minds on the important issues of the day. For this we need the free exchange of information and ideas. We have to accept that some people have greater resources than others with which to put their views across. But we want to avoid the grosser distortions which unrestricted access to the broadcast media will bring.
294:. There are aspects of the ban on broadcasting political advertisements which no-one disputes: in particular, advertising by candidates for election, or by political parties, whether or not at election times. But this case is about advertising by a particular interest group which campaigns for changes in the law.
274:
48. In the United
Kingdom, and elsewhere in Europe, we do not want our government or its policies to be decided by the highest spenders. Our democracy is based upon more than one person one vote. It is based on the view that each person has equal value. "Within the sphere of democratic politics, we
334:
117. The Court, for its part, attaches considerable weight to these exacting and pertinent reviews, by both parliamentary and judicial bodies, of the complex regulatory regime governing political broadcasting in the United
Kingdom and to their view that the general measure was necessary to prevent
301:
51. For all the reasons which my noble and learned friend, Lord
Bingham of Cornhill, has so eloquently and comprehensively given, I agree that the ban as it operates in this case is not incompatible with the appellants' Convention rights. It is a balanced and proportionate response to the problem:
297:
50. The proposed advertisement shows an animal's cage, in which a chained girl gradually emerges from the shadows into view; the screen goes black and the following messages appear: "A chimp has the mental age of a 4-year-old"; "Although we share 98% of our genetic makeup they are still caged and
217:
28. The fundamental rationale of the democratic process is that if competing views, opinions and policies are publicly debated and exposed to public scrutiny the good will over time drive out the bad and the true prevail over the false. It must be assumed that, given time, the public will make a
250:
47. There was an elephant in the committee room, always there but never mentioned, when we heard this case. It was the dominance of advertising, not only in elections but also in the formation of political opinion, in the United States of
America. Enormous sums are spent, and
195:
The House of Lords held unanimously that there was no breach of ECHR article 10, because the
Communications Act 2003 was designed to level the playing field of expression, and therefore empower everyone's freedom of expression to the utmost.
207:'. If views are debated then truth prevails over time, and the law was to ensure equality of debate. If parties can buy coverage proportionate to their resources, this would distort. The case of
419:
376:
477:
240:
Lord Scott, while concurring with the result, dissented on one point at paragraph 44, by suggesting that ECHR cases were not actually binding on the UK courts.
256:
150:
259:
are struck down in the name of the First
Amendment: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press": see particularly
213:
was considered, but found to be inapplicable to the
British context, where the full strength of arguments against money in politics was considered.
271:
there is no limit to the amount that pressure groups can spend on getting their message across in the most powerful and pervasive media available.
175:
302:
they can seek to put their case across in any other way, but not the one which so greatly risks distorting the public debate in favour of the
252:
339:
In various dissents, a minority of the court, while stressing that money should never buy elections, objected to a total ban on spending.
363:
121:
case, on political spending at elections. It held that the United
Kingdom's ban on spending money on political advertising, under the
204:
178:
refused to let it show because it was deemed to fall within the prohibition on political advertising. They said this breached their
106:
232:
209:
255:, at election times: it is estimated that the disputed 2000 elections for President and Congress cost as much as US$ 3 billion.
472:
290:. It is about striking the right balance between the two most important components of a democracy: freedom of expression and
171:
114:
55:
218:
sound choice when, in the course of the democratic process, it has the right to choose. But it is highly desirable that the
408:
118:
78:
R (Animal
Defenders International) v Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport EWHC 3069, UKHL 15 and
322:
By a bare majority (9:8), the
European Court of Human Rights held the ban on political advertising under the
323:
291:
167:
155:
122:
140:
132:
While reflecting most of the election laws in the democratic world, the case stands in heavy contrast to
413:
390:
380:
287:
91:
412:
UKHL 23, BBC could refuse to broadcast graphic footage for an anti-abortion political party under the
203:
said the only issue (not interference, not legitimate aim pursued) was whether the restriction was '
223:
17:
425:
403:
398:
352:
357:
348:
145:
134:
371:
327:
261:
179:
126:
110:
311:
276:
466:
383:
243:
219:
79:
445:
200:
41:
174:
had an advertisement, not offensive, which was themed 'My Mate's a Primate'. The
267:
125:
section 321(2), was fully compatible with freedom of expression under the
227:
170:
section 321(2) bans political and industrial dispute related adverts.
303:
286:
49. So this case is not just about permissible restrictions on
420:
Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000
85:
74:
69:
61:
51:
34:
332:
248:
215:
102:Animal Defenders International v United Kingdom
8:
151:Australian Capital Television v Commonwealth
210:VgT Verein gegen Tierfabriken v Switzerland
222:of debate should be so far as practicable
40:
31:
326:section 321(2) was fully compatible with
438:
478:United Kingdom constitutional case law
275:confront each other as moral equals" (
257:Attempts to regulate campaign spending
176:Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre
7:
330:. The majority reasoned as follows.
18:Animal Defenders International v UK
154:as decided by the majority of the
144:, as decided by majorities of the
25:
205:necessary in a democratic society
107:United Kingdom constitutional law
182:right to freedom of expression.
318:European Court of Human Rights
172:Animal Defenders International
56:European Court of Human Rights
1:
314:concurred with Lord Bingham.
199:Giving the leading judgment,
246:gave a concurring judgment.
409:R (ProLife Alliance) v. BBC
253:therefore have to be raised
65:ECHR 362, (2013) 57 EHRR 21
494:
119:international human rights
27:UK constitutional case law
90:
39:
35:Animal Defenders Int v UK
324:Communications Act 2003
168:Communications Act 2003
156:High Court of Australia
123:Communications Act 2003
337:
308:
238:
141:Citizens United v. FEC
473:Human rights case law
414:Broadcasting Act 1990
391:Citizens United v FEC
288:freedom of expression
92:Freedom of expression
46:"My mate's a primate"
281:Voting with Dollars
265:, 424 US 1 (1976).
426:Companies Act 2006
310:Lord Carswell and
399:McCutcheon v. FEC
353:Political finance
98:
97:
94:, money, equality
16:(Redirected from
485:
457:
456:(2002) 34 EHRR 4
454:
448:
443:
364:Harper v. Canada
358:UK corporate law
349:Campaign finance
146:US Supreme Court
135:Buckley v. Valeo
44:
32:
21:
493:
492:
488:
487:
486:
484:
483:
482:
463:
462:
461:
460:
455:
451:
444:
440:
435:
372:Buckley v Valeo
345:
328:ECHR article 10
320:
262:Buckley v Valeo
193:
188:
180:ECHR article 10
164:
127:ECHR article 10
47:
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
491:
489:
481:
480:
475:
465:
464:
459:
458:
449:
437:
436:
434:
431:
430:
429:
423:
417:
405:
395:
387:
368:
360:
355:
344:
341:
319:
316:
312:Lord Neuberger
292:voter equality
192:
191:House of Lords
189:
187:
184:
163:
160:
96:
95:
88:
87:
83:
82:
76:
72:
71:
67:
66:
63:
59:
58:
53:
49:
48:
45:
37:
36:
26:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
490:
479:
476:
474:
471:
470:
468:
453:
450:
447:
442:
439:
432:
427:
424:
422:Schs 9 and 10
421:
418:
415:
411:
410:
406:
404:
401:
400:
396:
393:
392:
388:
385:
382:
378:
374:
373:
369:
366:
365:
361:
359:
356:
354:
350:
347:
346:
342:
340:
336:
331:
329:
325:
317:
315:
313:
307:
305:
299:
295:
293:
289:
284:
282:
278:
272:
270:
269:
264:
263:
258:
254:
247:
245:
244:Baroness Hale
241:
237:
235:
234:
229:
225:
221:
220:playing field
214:
212:
211:
206:
202:
197:
190:
185:
183:
181:
177:
173:
169:
161:
159:
157:
153:
152:
148:, as well as
147:
143:
142:
137:
136:
130:
128:
124:
120:
116:
112:
108:
104:
103:
93:
89:
84:
81:
77:
75:Prior actions
73:
68:
64:
60:
57:
54:
50:
43:
38:
33:
30:
19:
452:
441:
407:
397:
389:
370:
362:
338:
333:
321:
309:
300:
296:
285:
280:
273:
266:
260:
249:
242:
239:
231:
216:
208:
201:Lord Bingham
198:
194:
165:
149:
139:
133:
131:
105:ECHR 362 is
101:
100:
99:
70:Case history
29:
394:, US (2010)
386: (1976)
279:and Ayres,
467:Categories
428:ss 362–379
268:A fortiori
416:s 6(1)(a)
166:The UK's
343:See also
277:Ackerman
186:Judgment
115:European
86:Keywords
80:ECHR 191
62:Citation
446:UKHL 15
402:(2014)
367:SCR 827
228:auction
109:and a
433:Notes
379:
224:level
162:Facts
52:Court
381:U.S.
351:and
304:rich
138:and
117:and
377:424
233:VgT
469::
375:,
158:.
129:.
113:,
111:UK
384:1
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.