Freedom of Expression - Irish Caselaw

The right to freedom of expression isn't an absolute right since something that anyone says could cause offence to a different. Freedom of expression may possibly occasionally have to be limited in the interests of society.Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides that everyone has the directly to freedom of expression. But, it's expression is "subject to such procedures, problems, rules or penalties as are prescribed by contact us and are necessary in a democratic community in the interests of national stability, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for preserving the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."A number of Irish cases have gone to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on the issue of freedom of expression. The 1994 situation of Proinsia de Rossa -v- the Sunday Independent concerned a report by Mr. Eamon Dunphy which suggested that Mr. de Rossa was involved with severe paramilitary crime, was anti-Semitic and reinforced violent communist oppression. The magazine appealed the award of A300,000 on the foundation that it had been disproportionate to the harm sustained by p Rossa. The European Court within favour of de Rossa and distinguished this case from a similar British case Tolstoy Miloslavsky because "a State remains absolve to select the actions which it views best used to handle domestically the Convention matter at issue." Quite simply the Irish courts were called to make a firm decision the size of the honor once the trial judge had offered reasonable instructions to the court. There clearly was held to be no violation of Article 10 of the ECHR.In yet another event Maguire -v- Drury (1995) a magazine wished to publish an with a whose wife had had an additional marital affair with a Catholic priest. She asked since it would cause harm to her kiddies it to not be published by them. Judge E' Hanlon decided in preference of the paper and said "freedom means the best to write things which government and judges, however well motivated feel should not be published."In the case of Cogley -v- Radio Teilifis Eireann in 2005 an experienced case worker was employed by RTE's Prime Time system to use up employment at Leas Cross Nursing Home. He was carrying a hidden camera. The owners of the house stated that key recording breached their ECHR directly to privacy. The High Court decided that the problems raised by the system were of significant public interest - particularly the standard of care at the home and if it was effectively managed. Judge Clarke said that he determined that the conclusion doesn't justify the means and the use of secret recording would give rise to nominal damages.