ECtHR: Minasyan v Armenia (59180/15) judgment | 07.01.2025 (effective legal framework protecting from media attacks against LGBT-activists)

67.  The Court notes, in particular, that the domestic courts gave full weight to the author’s right to freedom of expression and little to no importance to the effect of his statements on the applicants and their private life. In doing so, the courts stressed the fact that the author was a representative of the press reporting on a matter of public interest. The Court reiterates in this connection that the protection afforded by Article 10 of the Convention to journalists is subject to the proviso that they act in good faith in order to provide accurate and reliable information in accordance with the tenets of responsible journalism (see Bédat v. Switzerland [GC], no. 56925/08, § 50, 29 March 2016). Article 10 does not guarantee a wholly unrestricted freedom of expression even with respect to press coverage of matters of serious public concern …

69.  The Court cannot accept as an example of responsible journalism an article propagating hatred, hostility and discrimination against a minority, in this case the LGBT community, which, at the material time, appeared to be one of the main targets of widespread hostility, hate speech and hate‑motivated violence in the country [emphasis added] (see Oganezova, cited above, §§ 87‑122, as well as the ECRI report and the third-party submissions in paragraphs 33 and 51 above respectively), and against those, like the applicants, who were active in promoting and defending the rights of that minority. The domestic courts failed to recognise the author’s hostile tone and intentions and the impact that his statements had on the applicants’ Article 8 rights. His expressions, which were meant to incite intolerance and hostility against the applicants with the clear intention of intimidating them and causing them real harm, were downplayed by the courts and regarded as legitimate expressions of “criticism” in the context of a debate on a matter of public interest. By doing so, the domestic courts failed to protect the applicants from speech advocating intolerance and harmful acts in breach of Article 8 of the Convention.

More: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22fulltext%22:[%2259180/15%22],%22documentcollectionid2%22:[%22GRANDCHAMBER%22,%22CHAMBER%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-240280%22]}