NISKASAARI AND OTAVAMEDIA OY v. FINLAND JUDGMENT 9 their special features. The Government referred in this respect to the subsidiarity principle. In their view, the impugned measures could be regarded as proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and the reasons adduced by the domestic courts had been relevant and sufficient. There was thus no violation of Article 10 of the Convention. 2. The Court’s assessment a. Whether there was an interference 40. The Court agrees that the first applicant’s conviction and the award of damages and costs imposed on both applicants constituted an interference with their right to freedom of expression, as guaranteed by Article 10 § 1 of the Convention. b. Whether it was prescribed by law and pursued a legitimate aim 41. The Government’s position was that the impugned measures had a basis in Finnish law, namely in Chapter 24, section 9, of the Penal Code and in Chapter 5, section 6, of the Tort Liability Act, and that the interference complained of pursued a legitimate aim, namely the protection of the reputation or rights of others. The applicants did not dispute that position. 42. The Court for its part, likewise accepts that the interference, based on Chapter 24, section 9, of the Penal Code, was “prescribed by law” (see Nikula v. Finland, no. 31611/96, § 34, ECHR 2002-II; Selistö v. Finland, no. 56767/00, § 34, 16 November 2004; Karhuvaara and Iltalehti v. Finland, no. 53678/00, § 43, ECHR 2004-X; and Eerikäinen and Others v. Finland, no. 3514/02, § 58, 10 February 2009) and that it pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the reputation or rights of others, within the meaning of Article 10 § 2. c. Whether the interference was necessary in a democratic society 43. According to the Court’s well-established case-law, freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and one of the basic conditions for its progress and each individual’s self-fulfilment. Subject to paragraph 2 of Article 10 of the Convention, 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 pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness, without which there is no “democratic society”. Given that the exceptions set out in Article 10 § 2 must be strictly construed, the need for any restrictions must be established convincingly (see, for example, Lingens v. Austria, 8 July 1986, § 41, Series A no. 103; and Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway [GC], no. 23118/93, § 43, ECHR 1999 VIII).