29/09/2023, 12:35 SANCHEZ v. FRANCE - 45581/15 (Judgment : No Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} : Grand Chamber) [2023] ECHR 418 (1… 96. The applicant pointed out that he was a politician and thus his environment was a sensitive one, requiring him to strike a balance between the protection of the reputation of others and the interests of free discussion of political issues, particularly during an election campaign, which was a high point in the life of any party or political leader. The Internet and social media helped to simplify speech, and the pitfall of selfcensorship had to be avoided at all costs, so as not to eliminate criticism of official policy or political opposition. The Internet provided, in particular, a bottom-up chain of communication from the citizen to the politician, as a means of expressing concerns, positions and criticisms to the latter. The transposition of media law was therefore inadequate and, moreover, with a system of interactive monologues, each speaker should be solely liable for his or her remarks. 97. Furthermore, the applicant argued that filtering would not be desirable in view of the emergence of an electronic democracy. On the other hand, formal notification requesting the removal of a given comment, whether by electronic registered letter or through a reporting mechanism, would be a means of establishing that the account holder was aware of the comment and of verifying that he or she was acting in good faith by immediately deleting it. 98. Lastly, he referred to the need to have recourse to means other than criminal proceedings in order to respond to political criticism. 99. The applicant concluded from the foregoing that the reasons given by the domestic courts to convict him had been neither relevant nor sufficient. 2. The Government 100. The Government acknowledged that there had been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression, describing it as indirect, since he had not been convicted on the basis of his own words and he himself had not conveyed the impugned remarks to the public. They concluded that the interference in the present case thus concerned only the possible limitations on the applicant’s ability to open a free discussion forum, allowing third parties to express their views and react on his Facebook “wall”, and therefore a circumscribed area of his means of political expression. 101. They submitted, however, that the interference in question was prescribed by law, pursued legitimate aims and was necessary in a democratic society. https://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2023/418.html 48/100