BILD GMBH & CO. KG v. GERMANY JUDGMENT (v) Consequences of the publication 43. The Court reiterates that the risk of harm posed by content and communications on the Internet to the exercise and enjoyment of human rights and freedoms, particularly the right to respect for private life, is certainly higher than that posed by the press (see, for instance, M.L. and W.W. v. Germany, cited above, § 91, and the cases cited therein). The Court notes in this connection that the Regional Court further justified the injunction against publication of the unedited CCTV footage on the basis of the personal consequences of the publications as put forward by P. (see paragraphs 10 and 11 above). The Court recognises that P., when requested by that court to expand on his submission, stated that he had been confronted with critical comments about the documented incident by members of the public and by his children. While this concerned the previous publications, the domestic courts, however, failed to examine to what extent any future publication of the unedited CCTV footage – regardless of the accompanying coverage – would lead to similarly negative consequences justifying an obligation to pixelate P.’s image. (vi) Severity of the restriction imposed 44. Regarding the severity of the order imposed on the applicant company, the Court notes that the applicant company was not prohibited from reporting on the police intervention in question and, provided it adhered to the domestic courts’ rulings, could still make use of the edited CCTV footage to illustrate its reporting (see paragraph 11 above). While the order did not constitute a particularly severe restriction (see, mutatis mutandis, Axel Springer SE and RTL Television GmbH, cited above, § 56), the Court is nevertheless of the opinion that it cannot be considered justified, since, in the circumstances of the present case and for the reasons exposed above, its infliction lacked the necessary balancing of the competing interests with respect to the second publication and any future publication of the unedited CCTV footage. (c) Conclusion 45. In the light of the above, the Court considers that the national courts – and especially the Regional Court – duly took into account the criteria set out in its case-law in the context of balancing the competing rights under Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention in respect of the first publication (notably, the contribution to a debate of public interest, how well known the person concerned was and his prior conduct, the method of obtaining the information and its veracity, the content and form of the publication, its consequences and the severity of the restriction imposed). The Court does not see any reasons to substitute its view for that of the domestic courts in these respects (see the case-law quoted in paragraph 29 above). However, the 12