Vejdeland and Others v. Sweden, No. 1813/07, ECtHR (Fifth Section), 9 February 2012

Distribution at a school of leaflets containing hate speech directed against homosexual people. Interference by the state necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the reputation and rights of others.

Art. 10 ECHR

1. In reviewing under article 10 the decisions taken by the national authorities pursuant to their margin of appreciation, the Court must determine, in the light of the case as a whole, including the content of the comments held against the applicants and the context in which they made them, whether the interference at issue was ‘proportionate’ to the legitimate aim pursued and whether the reasons adduced by them to justify the interference are ‘relevant and sufficient’.

2. Leaflets describing homosexuality as having ‘a morally destructive effect on the substance of society’, being ‘a deviant sexual proclivity’ and one of the main reasons why HIV and AIDS had gained a foothold, as well as affirming that the ‘homosexual lobby’ tries to play down paedophilia are to be considered serious and prejudicial allegations, although they do not directly recommend individuals to commit hateful acts.
(The applicants distributed in an upper secondary school a hundred leaflets. The alleged aim was to start a debate about the lack of objectivity in the education dispensed in Swedish schools. Domestic courts charged the applicants with agitation against a national or ethnic group since the leaflets contained hate speech directed at the homosexual community. The applicants complained that their conviction constituted an unjustified interference with their right to freedom of expression under article 10. The Court found no violation being the interference reasonable, necessary in a democratic society and proportionate to the legitimate purpose of the protection of the reputation and rights of others).

The applicants complained about the violation of article 7 (nullum crimen sine lege) alleging that the applicable domestic law was so unclear that it was not possible for them to ascertain whether or not their act was criminal. The ECtHR declared this part of the application inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded, having considered that the impugned interference was sufficiently clear and foreseeable and thus ‘prescribed by the law’ within the meaning of article 7.