DELFI AS v. ESTONIA JUDGMENT 27 conceived in respect of hard copies of documents were also deemed to apply to electronically stored documents). This does not mean that the provisions of the civil law in question did not constitute a sufficiently clear legal basis for the applicant company’s liability, or that gradual clarification of legal rules was outlawed (compare, mutatis mutandis, Radio France and Others v. France, no. 53984/00, §§ 20 and 30, ECHR 2004-II). Indeed, general provisions of law can at times make for a better adaptation to changing circumstances than can attempts at detailed regulation (see, for comparison, Times Newspapers Ltd v. the United Kingdom (nos. 1 and 2), nos. 3002/03 and 23676/03, §§ 20, 21 and 38, ECHR 2009, where the “Internet publication rule” relied on a rule originally dating from the year 1849, and Editorial Board of Pravoye Delo and Shtekel v. Ukraine, no. 33014/05, §§ 60-68, ECHR 2011 (extracts), where the lack of reference to Internet publications in the otherwise quite detailed media law gave rise to an issue of lawfulness under Article 10 of the Convention). 76. The Court accordingly finds that, as a professional publisher, the applicant company must at least have been familiar with the legislation and case-law, and could also have sought legal advice. The Court observes in this context that the Delfi news portal is one of the largest in Estonia, and also that a degree of notoriety has been attributable to comments posted in its commenting area. Thus, the Court considers that the applicant company was in a position to assess the risks related to its activities and that it must have been able to foresee, to a reasonable degree, the consequences which these could entail. It therefore finds that the interference in issue was “prescribed by law” within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 10 of the Convention. (c) Legitimate aim 77. The Court considers that the restriction of the applicant company’s freedom of expression pursued a legitimate aim of protecting the reputation and rights of others. The Court has taken note of the applicant company’s argument about the liability of the actual authors of the comments. However, in the Court’s view the fact that the actual authors were also in principle liable does not remove the legitimate aim of holding the applicant company liable for any damage to the reputation and rights of others. The question of whether the applicant company’s rights under Article 10 were excessively restricted in the present case by holding it liable for comments written by third parties is a question of whether the restriction was “necessary in a democratic society”, to be dealt with below.