I agree though. They haven't. Even in countries with a high regard for free speech, there are exceptions. Nor is internet censorship the end of democracy.
But, directionality is important in politics. China provides an alternative example, that breaks many of the "rules" entirely. You can have a great firewall. China does. It's doing OK. Why can't Turkey? Why can't India? Why can't the EU?
^thanks for posting, btw. I've never read it, and I'm a citizen.
^^Ok… that caveat appears 5 times, allowing the limiting of 5 different rights for almost any reason any member state decides.
This really bothers me. I wish they had left these rights out, and only included rights that they can actually agree on.
That's there to allow a ban on porn. Which the US has as well, despite not having a similar clause.
Article 10 is comparatively well drafted. It's Article 8's nebulous "family life" that's the problem, with all sorts of surprising implications. It's as bad a drafting mistake as the US's 2nd amendment.
The ECHR Article 10 recognises this:
"1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, 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 maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."
.. which is how Germany can have its ban on Nazi symbols.