Information Note on the Court’s case-law No.
November 1996
Wingrove v. the United Kingdom - 17419/90
Judgment 25.11.1996
Article 10
Article 10-1
Freedom of expression
[This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.]
Refusal by British Board of Film Classification to grant distribution certificate for applicant's video work: "interference" with applicant's right to freedom of expression.
A."Prescribed by law"
Board acted in accordance with section 4 (1) of Video Recordings Act 1984.
Blasphemy by very nature has no precise legal definition - national authorities must be afforded degree of flexibility in assessing whether particular facts fall within definition.
No general uncertainty or disagreement as to definition of blasphemy - Court satisfied that applicant with legal advice could reasonably foresee that scenes in film could fall within the scope of blasphemy - cannot be said that blasphemy law did not afford adequate protection against arbitrary interference - impugned restriction was "prescribed by law".
B.Legitimate aim
Aim of interference corresponds to the protection of rights of others and is fully consonant with aims of Article 9.
Whether or not real need for protection against exposure to video to be addressed when assessing "necessity" of interference.
Not for Court to rule in abstracto as to compatibility of domestic law with Convention - fact that law of blasphemy does not treat all religions on equal footing does not detract from legitimacy of aim pursued in present context - certificate refusal had a legitimate aim.
C."Necessary in a democratic society"
Interference intended to protect against seriously offensive attacks on matters regarded as sacred by Christians - there is as yet not sufficient common ground in legal and social orders of member States of the Council of Europe to conclude that blasphemy legislation is, in itself, unnecessary in a democratic society.
Under Article 10 § 2 little scope for restrictions on political speech or on debate of questions of public interest - wider margin of appreciation generally available in relation to matters liable to offend intimate personal convictions in the sphere of morals or religion - as with morals, no uniform European conception of the requirements of protection against attacks on religious convictions - national authorities better placed than international judge to define these requirements and to rule on "necessity" of "restriction".
Final European supervision all the more necessary given breadth and open-endedness of notion of blasphemy and the risks of arbitrary or excessive interferences this entails - prior restraint in present case calls for special scrutiny.
Blasphemy law does not prohibit expression of views hostile to Christian religion or of any opinion offensive to Christians - law seeks to control manner in which views are advocated - extent of insult to religious feelings must be significant.
High degree of profanation required: safeguard against arbitrariness.
Video work portrays crucified Christ in acts of overtly sexual nature - national authorities considered manner in which such imagery was treated placed focus less on erotic feelings of the character than on those of the audience and that no attempt was made to explore meaning of imagery beyond engaging viewer in "voyeuristic erotic experience" - thus reasons given to justify interference can be considered relevant and sufficient - interference cannot be said to be arbitrary or excessive.
Videos once on the market easily escape control - not unreasonable for national authorities to consider that video could have reached people to whom it would have caused offence - national authorities better placed than European Court to make assessment as to video's likely impact.
Although interference amounted to complete ban this was understandable consequence of authorities' opinion that distribution of video would infringe the criminal law and of applicant's refusal to amend it or cut out blasphemous scenes - national authorities' margin of appreciation not overstepped.
Conclusion: no violation (seven votes to two).
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy