MURPHY v. IRELAND JUDGMENT 15 be, and was not, applied. The State could therefore reasonably expect a lower degree of tolerance of advertising, particularly on sensitive issues. In addition, just as the restriction on broadcasting of advertising promoted neutrality and balance, allowing or obliging stations to accept advertising on religious issues would undermine that balance. Moreover, they pointed out that the applicant's position went so far as to challenge the requirement of impartiality even in a political context as he wrongly implied that any restriction on political advertising would be invalid (Vgt Verein gegen Tierfabriken v. Switzerland, cited above, §§ 66-67). 41. Furthermore, the Government maintained that the means chosen by the State to balance freedom of expression against those sensitivities was limited: it was concerned with broadcasting of religious advertisements only so that proportionality was thereby built into the overall regulatory regime. 42. The Government accepted that there might have been different ways of responding to the concerns outlined by it above but considered that the State was entitled to view certain alternatives as inherently unattractive. 43. They rejected the idea of permitting limited religious advertising. In the first place, any limitation would have unequal consequences for broadcasters. The national broadcaster (RTE) would be compelled to broadcast any advertisement which satisfied the relevant criteria whereas independent broadcasters would be free to refuse, accept or favour any religious advertising satisfying such criteria on purely commercial grounds. Indeed, permitting some form of religious broadcasting would have unequal consequences for religions with the larger religions potentially exploiting their dominant position or resources to obtain access to the broadcast media to the prejudice of smaller religions. The present prohibition, in contrast, ensured that one viewpoint was not allowed to dominate over another and it promoted a “level playing field” for all religions irrespective of their wealth, their dominance, their power and their current popularity (United Christian Broadcasters v. the United Kingdom, application no. 44802/98, decision of 7 November 2000). Secondly, the assessment of any such restrictions would be inherently problematic. Restricting the amount of advertising from certain religious groups could easily have been perceived as discriminatory - individuals might have been prepared to accept that no one could advertise, but to control advertising by certain religions was bound to inflame some religious sensibilities. In addition, the Government wondered whether it was indeed possible to distinguish between the passionate and committed preacher and the incendiary proselytiser. A limitation based on the content of the advertisement raised the spectre of subjective religious censorship by either the State or by the broadcasters themselves. The involvement of the State, or indeed of any non-State agent, in such censorship could potentially be considered offensive of itself and, further, there was a risk that the familiar would be considered more permissible than the marginal and unfamiliar.