16 MURPHY v. IRELAND JUDGMENT The Government also rejected the idea of a limitation based on the level of offence as suggested by the applicant (advertising which was “likely and bound” or “calculated” to cause offence): the Government reiterated that in the Irish context there was no such thing as “a little bit of offence” as the fact of religious advertising was considered of itself to be potentially offensive. Thirdly, the Government noted that section 65 of the 2001 Act had somewhat diluted the force of section 10(3) of the 1988 Act. However, the Government maintained that the State was entitled to consider in 1960 and in 1988 that a restraint on all broadcasting of religious advertising was necessary whether the message was purely informational or not. This choice was not undermined by the decision incorporated in the 2001 Act to allow the broadcasting of informational advertisements only. In any event, the applicant's advertisement would, in the Government's view, have still fallen foul of section 65 of the 2001 Act. Furthermore, the new regime had its own associated difficulties: the dividing line between religious information and the underpinning religious assumptions of a message was difficult to establish. 44. Finally, the Government pointed out that the prohibition challenged by the present applicant was not unique. A statutory prohibition of religious advertising was in force in the United Kingdom until the Broadcasting Act 1990 and numerous self-regulatory codes continue to control such matters. Swiss law (section 18 of the Federal Radio and Television Act together with section 15 of the Radio and Television Ordinance) prohibited, inter alia, religious and political advertising. Council Directive 89/552/EEC also contained a restriction on religious advertising. 45. In such circumstances, the Government submitted that the Irish State was entitled, under Articles 9 and 10, to act with caution and to chose to prohibit the broadcasting of religious advertising. 2. The applicant 46. The applicant maintained that his being prevented from using his method of choice to advertise a religious event by the application of section 10(3) of the 1988 Act clearly constituted an interference with his rights under Articles 9 and 10 of the Convention. The above-cited Handyside judgment indicated that the protection of Article 10 extended to ideas that “offend, shock or disturb”. He observed that the prohibition extended to all broadcasters and, while the possibility of advertising in other media and contexts may have reduced the impact of the interference, it remained nonetheless a significant and substantial one. 47. He accepted that the relevant restriction was “prescribed by law” and did not dispute that the aim of protecting public order and safety and the rights and freedoms of others constituted legitimate aims.