## Facts

- A Danish television journalist produced a news feature about a racist youth group in Copenhagen known as the “Greenjackets.”
- He filmed a long interview with three group members (and included a social worker), during which the youths made strongly racist and xenophobic remarks about immigrants and ethnic minorities.
- The journalist edited the footage into a short segment broadcast on a national television news magazine program in 1985.
- After a complaint to the Minister of Justice, Danish authorities prosecuted the youths for disseminating racist statements under Penal Code § 266(b) and convicted them.
- Authorities also charged the journalist (and a news editor) with aiding and abetting dissemination of the racist statements, citing his role in arranging the interview, selecting and editing content, and broadcasting it without sufficient counterbalancing commentary.
- The journalist was convicted and fined; the conviction was affirmed through the Danish Supreme Court.
- The journalist petitioned under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, claiming the conviction violated freedom of expression.

## Issues

1. Whether the journalist’s criminal conviction for aiding and abetting dissemination of interviewees’ racist speech interfered with his Article 10(1) freedom of expression.
2. Whether the interference was justified under Article 10(2) as prescribed by law, pursuing a legitimate aim, and necessary in a democratic society.

## Decision

- The European Court of Human Rights (Grand Chamber) held, by 12–7, that Denmark violated Article 10.
- The conviction was an interference with expression that was prescribed by law and pursued legitimate aims, including protecting the rights of others and preventing disorder.
- The interference was not necessary in a democratic society because the broadcast’s purpose and context were journalistic reporting on racism, not promotion of racist views.
- The Court emphasized the press’s “public watchdog” role and warned that punishing journalists for reporting on extremist groups risks chilling coverage of matters of public concern.
- The Court treated primary culpability as resting with the speakers of the racist remarks, absent proof the journalist endorsed, encouraged, or intended to propagate the views.

## Legal Principles

- Article 10 protects journalistic reporting on matters of public interest, including content that offends, shocks, or disturbs.
- States may pursue legitimate aims in combating racism, but restrictions on press reporting must meet strict necessity and proportionality review.
- A journalist’s liability for disseminating third-party hate speech depends heavily on context, including the program format, framing, questioning, and whether the journalist’s conduct dissociates the reporting from endorsement.
- Even relatively modest criminal penalties imposed on journalists can create a chilling effect that weighs against necessity under Article 10(2).

## Conclusion

The court ruled that convicting a journalist for broadcasting interviewees’ racist statements in a program intended to inform public debate on racism was a disproportionate interference with freedom of expression under Article 10, because the reporting context did not amount to endorsement or incitement and criminal liability risked deterring media coverage of extremist phenomena.


Jersild v. Denmark, App. No. 15890/89, 298 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1994)