Wingrove v. the United Kingdom, No. 17419/90, ECtHR (Chamber), 26 November 1996

Ban on the distribution of a blasphemous film. Legitimate interference with freedom of expression.

Art. 10 ECHR

Although blasphemy laws have become increasingly rare, there is not sufficient common ground in the legal and social orders of the member States of the Council of Europe to conclude that restrictions imposed on blasphemous materials are unnecessary in a democratic society. When blasphemy laws contain sufficient safeguards against arbitrary interference with one’s right to freedom of expression, they cannot be considered incompatible with the Convention.

(In the instant case, the applicant challenged the refusal of British authorities to grant a distribution certificate for a videotape, which portrayed the crucified Christ in acts of a sexual nature with a nun, thus insulting the feelings of believing Christians and violating blasphemy laws. He alleged a breach of Article 10 ECHR, since he considered the British blasphemy laws as unnecessary in a multi-cultural democracy. The Court found that the laws at issue do not prohibit any form of expression perceived to be offensive towards the Christian religion, but they try to control how the views are advocated. Moreover, the extent of insult to religious feelings must be significant to fall within the scope of the offense. Consequently, the Court found no violation of Article 10 ECHR).