18 SAVVA TERENTYEV v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT 59. In the light of the foregoing consideration, the Court will proceed on the assumption that the interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression was “prescribed by law”, within the meaning of Article 10 § 2 of the Convention. (b) Legitimate aim 60. The Court is further satisfied that the interference in question was designed to protect “the reputation or rights of others”, namely Russian police personnel, and had thus a legitimate aim under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention (see, for instance, Le Pen v. France (dec.), no. 18788/09, 20 April 2010, and Vejdeland and Others v. Sweden, no. 1813/07, § 49, 9 February 2012). (c) “Necessary in a democratic society” (i) General principles 61. The general principles for assessing whether an interference with the exercise of the right to freedom of expression has been “necessary in a democratic society” are well-settled in the Court’s case-law and were reiterated in a number of cases. The Court has stated, in particular, that freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and one of the basic conditions for its progress and for each individual’s self-fulfilment. Subject to Article 10 § 2, it is applicable not only to “information” or “ideas” that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb. Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no “democratic society” (see, among the recent authorities, Morice v. France [GC], no. 29369/10, § 124, ECHR 2015; Pentikäinen v. Finland [GC], no. 11882/10, § 87, ECHR 2015; Perinçek, cited above, § 196; and Bédat v. Switzerland [GC], no. 56925/08, § 48, ECHR 2016). 62. Moreover, there is little scope under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention for restrictions on political speech or on debate on questions of public interest. It is the Court’s consistent approach to require very strong reasons for justifying restrictions on such debate, for broad restrictions imposed in individual cases would undoubtedly affect respect for the freedom of expression in general in the State concerned (see Feldek v. Slovakia, no. 29032/95, § 83, ECHR 2001-VIII, and Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 61, ECHR 1999-IV). 63. The adjective “necessary” implies the existence of a “pressing social need”, which must be convincingly established (see, for instance, Erdoğdu v. Turkey, no. 25723/94, § 53, ECHR 2000-VI). Admittedly, it is first of all for the national authorities to assess whether there is such a need capable of justifying that interference and, to that end, they enjoy a certain margin of