İ.A. v. Turkey, No. 42571/98, ECtHR (Second Section), 13 September 2005

Conviction for blasphemy. Lawful interference with freedom of expression.

Art. 10 ECHR

1. Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and one of the basic conditions for its progress and for each individual's self-fulfilment. Those who choose to exercise the freedom to manifest their religion, irrespective of whether they do so as members of a religious majority or a minority, cannot reasonably expect to be exempt from all criticism. They must tolerate and accept the denial by others of their religious beliefs and even the propagation by others of doctrines hostile to their faith.

2. The exercise of that freedom carries with it duties and responsibilities. Among them, in the context of religious beliefs, may legitimately be included a duty to avoid expressions that are gratuitously offensive to others and profane. This being so, as a matter of principle it may be considered necessary to punish improper attacks on objects of religious veneration.

3. The fact that there is no uniform European conception of the requirements of the protection of the rights of others in relation to attacks on their religious convictions means that the Contracting States have a wider margin of appreciation when regulating freedom of expression in connection with matters liable to offend intimate personal convictions within the sphere of morals or religion. A State may therefore legitimately consider it necessary to take measures aimed at repressing certain forms of conduct, including the imparting of information and ideas, judged incompatible with respect for the freedom of thought, conscience and religion of others.
(The applicant, the proprietor of a publishing house, published a novel conveying his views on philosophical and theological issues. He was convicted for blasphemy under article 175 of the Criminal Code, on the grounds that the book discredited and vilified Islam. The applicant alleged infringement of his right to freedom of expression under Article 10 ECHR. The Court found no violation of the provision, since the measure adopted was reasonable, proportionate and had met the pressing social need of providing protection against offensive attacked on matters regarded as sacred by Muslims).