The
European Court of Human Rights held that the publication of a cartoon
representing the attack on the twin towers of the World Trade Centre, with a
caption which parodied the advertising slogan of a famous brand: We have all
dreamt of it… Hamas did it, provoked a certain public reaction, capable of
stirring up violence and demonstrating a plausible impact on public order in a
politically sensitive region, namely the Basque Country.
Therefore the conviction did not violate Article 10 (freedom of expression) of
the European Convention on Human Rights in respect of the applicant’s conviction
for complicity in condoning terrorism.
The drawing was published in the Basque weekly newspaper Ekaitza on 13
September, 2001, two days after the attacks of September 11.
Following publication of the drawing, the Bayonne public prosecutor brought
proceedings against the cartoonist Denis Leroy and the newspaper’s publishing
director on charges of complicity in condoning terrorism and condoning
terrorism.
In January 2002 the court convicted them of these charges and ordered them to
pay a fine of EUR 1,500 each, to publish the judgment at their own expense in
Ekaitza and two other newspapers and to pay costs.
Denis Leroy then appealed to the European Court.
Summary of the judgment
The Court considered that the applicant’s conviction
amounted to an interference with the exercise of his right to freedom of
expression. This interference was prescribed by French law and pursued several
legitimate aims, having regard to the sensitive nature of the fight against
terrorism, namely the maintenance of public safely and the prevention of
disorder and crime. It remained to be determined whether this interference was
necessary in a democratic society.
The applicant complained that the French courts had denied his real intention,
which was governed by political and activist expression, namely that of
communicating his anti-Americanism through a satirical image and illustrating
the decline of American imperialism. The Court, however, considered that the
drawing was not limited to criticism of American imperialism, but supported and
glorified the latter’s violent destruction. In this regard, the Court based its
finding on the caption which accompanied the drawing, and noted that the
applicant had expressed his moral support for those whom he presumed to be the
perpetrators of the attacks of 11 September 2001. Through his choice of
language, the applicant commented approvingly on the violence perpetrated
against thousands of civilians and diminished the dignity of the victims.
Although the domestic courts had not taken the applicant’s intentions into
account, they had examined whether the context of the case and the public
interest justified the possible use of a measure of provocation or exaggeration.
In this respect, it had to be recognised that the drawing had assumed a special
significance in the circumstances of the case, as the applicant must have
realised. He submitted his drawing on the day of the attacks and it was
published on 13 September, with no precautions on his part as to the language
used. In the Court’s opinion, this factor - the date of publication - was such
as to increase the applicant’s responsibility in his account of, and even
support for, a tragic event, whether considered from an artistic or a
journalistic perspective. In addition, the impact of such a message in a
politically sensitive region, namely the Basque Country, was not to be
overlooked; the weekly newspaper’s limited circulation notwithstanding, the
Court noted that the drawing’s publication had provoked a certain public
reaction, capable of stirring up violence and demonstrating a plausible impact
on public order in the region.
Consequently, the Court considered that the grounds put forward by the domestic
courts in convicting the applicant had been “relevant and sufficient”.
In conclusion, having regard to the modest nature of the fine imposed on the
applicant and the context in which the impugned drawing had been published, the
Court found that the measure imposed on the applicant had not been
disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. Accordingly, there had not been
a violation of Article 10.