The right to freedom of expression, enshrined within article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and integrated into UK law through the Human Rights Act of 1998, means that everyone has the right to freely hold and express their opinions and impart information without interference by public authorities. However, a lack of press freedom has become an increasingly prevalent issue affecting Belfast and Northern Ireland but also reaching so far as to have warranted a European Commission recommendation for the protection of journalists. This threat to press freedom has created a worldwide threat to democratic society and raises the question of a potential breach of the right to freedom of expression. In 2020 alone, 62 journalists were killed for merely doing their jobs, with 1,200 professionals in the industry having died between 2006 and 2020 for investigating subjects ranging from political issues and corruption to the current climate crisis. In terms of the Israel-Gaza war, as of February 17th, at least 169 journalists and media workers have been killed, making it the deadliest period for journalists since 1992 and highlighting an urgent need for change.
The issue of declining press freedom has recently reached even greater heights here in Belfast. Just recently, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee (NIAC) announced an inquiry into Press Freedoms and Safety in Northern Ireland, following a finding that police have been spying on journalists.
In particular, Belfast Telegraph journalist Allison Morris revealed that in the last year alone she has received approximately eight or nine ‘threats to life’ from paramilitary groups or organised crime gangs, and that the threat continues online, where she has received abuse that is ‘heavily gendered and often has misogynistic undertones’, adding a further nuance to the already complex and difficult issue. This gender-based harassment has been proven to lead to self-censorship, posing a further threat to freedom of expression and to democracy.
The issue at hand is so prevalent that it was the subject of a European Commission recommendation in 2021. The recommendation responded to the lack of journalist safety, aiming to advise on how to ensure further protection by, for example, creating safer working conditions, paying particular attention to the protection of female journalists, and pursuing effective prosecution for criminal acts against journalists and media professionals given that, at the moment, 90% of the killers in these cases go undiscovered and unpunished, creating a real danger by potentially emboldening others with similarly malicious ideas. In 2024, a report commissioned by the European Commission was published discussing the implementation of the 2021 recommendation in order to begin to bring about real change. However, while this did highlight the current progress among the EU Member States and the current gaps in journalists’ protection, overall the report failed to accurately reflect the situation in reality and ‘critically assess the effectiveness’ of the measures being implemented, leaving organisations such as the International Press Institute and the European Federation of Journalists calling for further action to be taken.
Some argue that the true underlying issue is a lack of positive obligations under the right to freedom of expression, meaning that threatened journalists are insufficiently protected against threats. Interpreting the article to include positive obligations would entail that, instead of just prohibiting or preventing restrictions on freedom of expression without a legitimate aim, safety measures should be created to provide protection and further ensure press freedom.
Many believe that the introduction of such obligations would be work towards improving journalists’ safety and, by protecting press freedom, would also protect democracy. Caselaw supports this, with Dink v Turkey in particular setting out a positive obligation to ‘create a favourable environment for public debate in which everyone can participate’, emphasising that ‘in order to secure the right to freedom of expression, the safety and security of everyone wishing to exercise the right must first be guaranteed.’ Handyside v the United Kingdom demonstrates just how far-reaching freedom of expression can lawfully be. The judgment explains that in a democratic society, ‘space has to be created and sustained for public discussion and debate’, adding that freedom of expression protects ideas that ‘offend, shock or disturb the state or any sector of the population’ without actually creating the right to offend, portraying the importance of striking a fine balance between press freedom and freedom of expression and maintaining respect for the people of society. Thus, in order to uphold press freedom and protect democracy without causing upset and triggering the need for intervention, a delicate balance must be struck between protecting the right to freedom of expression and media freedom and ensuring that the right to respect for private and family life enshrined within article 8 of the Convention is similarly upheld.
It is important to note that the right to freedom of expression is not an absolute right but a qualified one, meaning that it may be limited in order to achieve a legitimate aim or to protect the interests of wider society. However, given that limiting press freedom would threaten democratic society, we must ask ourselves in any given situation whether a limitation is truly warranted or whether protecting our democracy is not more in the interest of society at large. Although there are of course instances where intervention is required, in order to protect and prioritise democracy within our society, we must ensure that the conditional nature of this right is not abused. There is a difference between threatening and endangering journalists to prevent them from exposing information and limiting their right to freedom of expression in the pursuit of a legitimate aim, and mistaking one for the other may open the door to an ‘attack on democracy’.
Threatening journalists’ safety poses a risk not only to press freedom and to freedom of expression, but also to other Convention rights such as the right to life, prohibition of torture, right to liberty and security, and right to respect for private and family life, the former two being absolute rights meaning that they must not be interfered with. With journalists being endangered merely for exercising their right to freedom of expression, a coordinated effort is called for among society, governments and international organisations in order to bring real change. This will require society to raise awareness of the issue and provide support to media workers, governments to enforce some sort of law to persecute anyone participating in criminal acts against journalists, and international organizations and bodies to monitor compliance with international human rights to ensure that reliable protection is delivered.
Comments