SPECIAL COLLECTION OF THE CASE LAW ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION of the applicant in the disclosed footage or obtaining the applicant’s consent to release the footage. Thus, the Court considered that although the disclosure of the footage was provided by law and pursued a legitimate aim, it was an unnecessary and disproportionate’ interference with the applicant’s right to privacy. More info here. iii. Publication of private information of public interest available on the public dominion ECtHR: In the case of Flinkkilä v. Finland (2010), the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that the State of Finland violated Article 10 of the European Convention when its national courts ordered the editors and journalists of two magazines to pay fines and damages, in the context of criminal proceedings, for publishing news articles mentioning the name and identity of B, the female friend of the National Conciliator, and their involvement in a violent altercation. The national courts considered that these articles were an unjustified invasion of B’s privacy. For the ECtHR, the interference on the freedom of expression of the claimant, although it was prescribed by law and pursued a legitimate aim, was disproportionate and thus not necessary in a democratic society, since B’s identity had been previously disclosed on national television, the questioned news articles were of public interest, and the sanctions too severe. More info here. iv. Publication of private photos from social media not directly related to matters of public interest Spain: In the case of Dario v. La Opinión de Zamora (2020), the Spanish Constitutional Court confirmed the Supreme Court’s award of damages to a man whose social media photographs had been published by a Spanish newspaper. The man had sued the newspaper after a report on his brother’s suicide had included photographs from the man’s private Facebook account. The Constitutional Court recognized that there is a balance to be found between a newspaper’s right to freedom of expression and an individual’s right to privacy, and held that the publication of private photographs which were not directly related to a matter of public interest was an infringement of the right to privacy. The Court stated that the mere sharing of images on social media by an individual does not authorize the use of those images by third parties without the individual’s consent. More info here. v. Radio broadcast of a private conversation of public interest ECtHR: In the case of Radio Twist v. Slovakia (2006), the European Court of Human Rights held that a recording about a public figure, and relating to matters in the public interest, outweighed an individual’s right to privacy even though the recording was illegally obtained and presented in a format that was not clearly audible. The domestic courts’ order that the applicant broadcasting company deliver a written and broadcast apology and pay a fine was an unjustified interference with its right to impart information under Article 10(1). The European Court reiterated the essential role the press fulfills in a democratic society and that the restrictions on its freedom of expression must be construed strictly. More info here. United States: In the case of Bartnicki v. Vopper (2001), the U.S. Supreme Court of the United States absolved a radio station of liability for broadcasting a conversation between two union 29