24 KABLIS v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT account and of the entries in question on his blog had therefore been lawful and had pursued the aim of preventing breaches of information distribution rules. The Government stressed that access to the above-mentioned posts had been blocked because they had contained calls for participation in an unauthorised public event rather than because of the applicant’s statements about the aims of that public event. Furthermore, as stated by the domestic courts, restriction of access to the entire VKontakte account rather than to the specific post had also had a basis in domestic law and had been justified by the real-time distribution of publicly accessible content on the Internet. The account could have been unblocked if the applicant had deleted the unlawful content. He could also have created a new social networking account. The applicant’s freedom of expression had not therefore been restricted by the contested measures. 2. The Court’s assessment (a) General principles 79. The Court has consistently held 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 paragraph 2 of Article 10, 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” (see Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 49, Series A no. 24; Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2) [GC], nos. 40660/08 and 60641/08, § 101, ECHR 2012; and Bédat v. Switzerland [GC], no. 56925/08, § 48, ECHR 2016). 80. The Court further reiterates that Article 10 guarantees freedom of expression to “everyone”. It makes no distinction according to the nature of the aim pursued or the role played by natural or legal persons in the exercise of that freedom (see Çetin and Others v. Turkey, nos. 40153/98 and 40160/98, § 57, ECHR 2003-III (extracts). It applies not only to the content of information but also to the means of dissemination, since any restriction imposed on the latter necessarily interferes with the right to receive and impart information (see Ahmet Yıldırım v. Turkey, no. 3111/10, § 50, ECHR 2012). 81. As to the importance of the Internet in the exercise of freedom of expression, the Court reiterates that in the light of its accessibility and its capacity to store and communicate vast amounts of information, the Internet plays an important role in enhancing the public’s access to news and facilitating the dissemination of information in general (see Times Newspapers Ltd v. the United Kingdom (nos. 1 and 2), nos. 3002/03 and