## Facts

- Richard Handyside, a UK publisher, acquired and published UK rights to *The Little Red Schoolbook*, aimed at schoolchildren and containing material on sex, drugs, and attitudes toward authority.
- After widespread publicity and controversy, UK authorities seized thousands of copies and related promotional material under the Obscene Publications Acts 1959 and 1964.
- Handyside was charged with possessing obscene books for publication for gain, convicted, fined, and ordered to pay costs; the copies and printing matrix were ordered destroyed.
- Domestic courts upheld the conviction, applying the statutory test that material is obscene if it tends to “deprave and corrupt” likely readers, emphasizing the book’s adolescent audience.
- Handyside complained to the European human rights organs, alleging violations of Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (peaceful enjoyment of possessions); other claims were rejected as inadmissible.

## Issues

1. Whether the seizure, conviction, and destruction of the book interfered with Article 10 rights, and if so whether the interference was prescribed by law, pursued legitimate aims (including protection of morals and children), and was necessary in a democratic society.
2. Whether the seizure and destruction of the books and matrix violated Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, or was justified as a lawful and proportionate control of property use in the general interest.
3. Whether the measures improperly restricted Convention rights contrary to Articles 17 and 18.

## Decision

- The court found no violation of Article 10, holding the interference was prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society for the protection of morals, particularly regarding minors.
- The court found no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, treating the destruction and seizure as a lawful, proportionate control of use of property in the general interest.
- The court found no violation of Articles 17 and 18.
- The application was dismissed.

## Legal Principles

- Freedom of expression protects not only inoffensive or widely accepted ideas, but also expression that offends, shocks, or disturbs; restrictions must still satisfy Article 10(2).
- “Necessary in a democratic society” requires a pressing social need and proportionality; “necessary” is more demanding than “reasonable” or “desirable,” though not equivalent to “indispensable.”
- In matters of public morals, states have a margin of appreciation because moral standards vary across time and place; this discretion remains subject to European supervision for compatibility and proportionality.
- Measures directed at protecting children from content deemed harmful may pursue legitimate aims under Article 10(2), including protection of morals and the rights of others.
- Where an expression restriction is justified, associated property measures (including seizure and destruction) may be permissible as lawful and proportionate control of property use under Protocol No. 1.

## Conclusion

The court held that the United Kingdom could, within its margin of appreciation on public morals and child protection, punish and confiscate distribution of the book to minors without violating freedom of expression or property rights, so long as the interference was lawful, pursued legitimate aims, and was proportionate.


Handyside v. United Kingdom, App. No. 5493/72 (Eur. Ct. H.R. 1976)