NGOs under European Convention on Human Rights / Tymofeyeva

was unconstitutional. It, in particular, noted that “the law has blocked access to more than one million wholly innocent web sites, while having little if any effect on the few hundred child pornography sites that were targeted under the law”. 889 The question is whether the system of automatic deletion of ‘hate speech’ comments will not simultaneously deprive millions of other readers of the possibility to express their opinion. The Court itself in its Chamber judgment also noted that the automatic word-based filter was relatively easy to circumvent. 890 There will always be people who are able to get round any computer-based system. The second option, namely the restriction of anonymity, may lead to violations of human rights themselves. Any ban on online anonymous communicationwould affect freedomof speech and impinge on personal privacy and security. 891 Banning or limiting the use of anonymity not only produces chilling and harmful effects on freedom of speech and intrudes on privacy, but it also opens the door to government surveillance and, in some cases, to political repression. 892 The practice will show what are the consequences of the Delfi case. 893 The other examples of proceedings containing restrictions of the rights of publishing companies (the Article 34 NGOs) to circulate information of an exact type are the cases of Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], 894 Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom 895 and many others . 896 Having analysed the safeguards of media in general, we will now concentrate on the area of protection of the journalists’ secret sources. 2.6.2.2 Protection of journalistic sources The protection of journalistic sources, though it may conflict with some of the legitimate aims referred to in paragraph 2 of Article 10 of the Convention, is, nevertheless, an important component of the freedom of expression. One of the first and the most important cases in this area was the case of Goodwin v. the United Kingdom. 897 In the present case, the Court established significant principles relating to freedom of press, namely it stated: “Protection of journalistic sources is one of the basic conditions for press freedom, as is reflected in the laws and the professional 890 Delfi AS , cited above, § 87. 891 TEICH, A., FRANKEL, M.k, KLING, R., and YA-CHING, L. Anonymous communication policies for the Internet: Results and recommendations of the AAAS conference . The Information Society 15, 2 (1999), p. 8. 892 Ibid. , p. 11. 893 TYMOFEYEVA, Alla. Anonymity on the Internet: Necessity or Danger? Reflections on Certain Aspects of the Delfi Case. In International and Internal Mechanisms of Fundamental Rights Effectiveness. Czech Brazilian monograph. RWW Science and New Media Passau-Berlin-Prague, 2015, pages 262-277. 894 Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, ECHR 1999-III. 895 Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom , 26 November 1991, Series a no. 216. 896 Mladina d.d. Ljubljana v. Slovenia , no. 20981/10, 17 April 2014 , Editorial Board of Pravoye Delo , cited above; Ukrainian Media Group v. Ukraine , no. 72713/01, 29 March 2005, Couderc and Hachette Filipacchi Associés v. France , no. 40454/07, 12 June 2014 and Eerikäinen and Others v. Finland , no. 3514/02, 10 February 2009. 897 Goodwin v. the United Kingdom , 27 March 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-II. 889 Ibid .

163