20 MURPHY v. IRELAND JUDGMENT see no reason why the State should consider that assessing religious advertising would put them in an invidious position. 59. For these reasons, the applicant concluded that there was no pressing reason which justified the prohibition of his advertisement. B. The Court's assessment 1. Interference 60. The Court notes that the applicant maintained that the application of section 10(3) of the 1988 Act in his case interfered with his rights guaranteed by Articles 9 and Article 10 of the Convention. While arguing that there had been no interference with his rights under either Article, the Government's submissions to the Court were, for the most part, expressed in terms of Article 10 of the Convention. 61. The Court considers that the matter essentially at issue in the present case is the applicant's exclusion from broadcasting an advertisement, an issue concerning primarily the regulation of his means of expression and not his profession or manifestation of his religion. It recalls that Article 10 protects not only the content and substance of information but also the means of dissemination since any restriction on the means necessarily interferes with the right to receive and impart information (Öztürk v. Turkey [GC], no. 22479/93, § 49, ECHR 1999-VI). Accordingly, the Court is of the view that the applicant's complaint about the prohibition contained in section 10(3) of the 1988 Act falls to be examined under Article 10 of the Convention. Given the parties' submissions concerning the scope of that Article and the above-cited Handyside judgment (see, in particular, § 49), the Court reiterates that even expression which could be considered offensive, shocking or disturbing to the religious sensitivities of others falls within the scope of the protection of Article 10, the question for the Court being whether any restriction imposed on that expression complies with the provisions of that Article. In addition, having regard to the fact that the applicant was prevented from broadcasting the advertisement as a result of the application of section 10(3) of the 1988 Act, there clearly has been an interference with his right to freedom of expression. 2. “Prescribed by law” 62. The parties did not dispute, and the Court considers it clear, that the prohibition applied to the applicant was set out in a clear and accessible manner in section 10(3) of the 1988 Act.