4 EINARSSON v. ICELAND JUDGMENT Supreme Court accepted that the altered picture had been accessible, not only to X’s followers on Instagram, but to other users as well. 16. Furthermore, the judgment contained the following reasons: “[X] claims that his act of uploading the altered picture onto the picture-sharing application in question did not constitute the publication of the picture within the meaning of Article 236(2) of the Penal Code No 19/1940, as he had believed that only a limited number of people would have access to it. This cannot be accepted, as the act of making something accessible in electronic format to such a large number of people as stated above, irrespective of whether the persons in question are the friends and acquaintances of the person doing so, [...], is considered to be a publication according to the traditional definition of the term. It remains to be determined whether [X’s] publication of the picture had, given the circumstances, constituted a defamatory allegation against the [applicant] under Article 235 of the Penal Code. The appealed judgment describes in detail that, before the complaints of sexual offences against him as described above had been reported, [the applicant] had been a well-known person, not least for his performance in public under the names of Gillz or Gillzenegger, the names under which he wrote on Internet, published books and pictures and presented himself in the media. The views of the [applicant] published there garnered some attention, as well as controversy; views which included his attitudes towards women and their sexual freedom. The documents of the case reveal that there were instances when his criticism had been directed towards named individuals, often women, and in some cases his words could be construed to mean that he was in fact recommending that they should be subjected to sexual violence. The [applicant] has often justified such conduct by stating that the material had been meant in jest and that those who criticised it lacked a sense of humour. The Supreme Court agrees with the District Court that the [applicant] enjoys the personal protection provided for by law, under Article 71 of the Constitution and Article 8(1) of the European Convention of Human Rights, cf. Act No 62/1994, irrespective of whether he was appearing under his own name or a pseudonym. In the same manner, he must take responsibility for the material he produces, irrespective of what name he chooses to use. When the [applicant] gave the aforementioned newspaper interview and employed provocative, if not derogatory, comments about others, including the girl who had accused him of sexual offences, he launched a public debate and should, moreover, have known that his comments would result in strong reactions from those who strongly disliked his abovementioned views. [X] enjoys freedom of expression according to Article 73(2) of the Icelandic Constitution and Article 10(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, and the District Court reached the correct conclusion that under these circumstances he had enjoyed greater freedom to express himself about the [applicant] and his opinions. In assessing whether or not comments or other expressions can be considered a defamatory allegation according to Article 235 of the General Penal Code, taking into consideration the manner in which the provision of Article 10 of the [Convention] has been clarified by the European Court of Human Rights, it has to be decided whether the expression involved a value judgment or a factual statement. Although it can be agreed that by using the term ‘rapist’ about a named person, that person is being accused of committing rape, account must be taken of the context in which the term is set, cf. the ruling of the Supreme Court on 29 January 2009 in Case No 321/2008. If the altered picture and the comment ‘Fuck you rapist bastard’ are taken as a whole – as the parties agree should be the case – the Supreme Court agrees with the District