16 ANNEN v. GERMANY - JUDGMENT to the Nazi regime. In fact, the applicant’s statement according to which the killing of human beings in Auschwitz had been unlawful, but allowed, and had not been subject to criminal liability under the Nazi regime, may also be understood as a way of creating awareness of the more general fact that law may diverge from morality. Although the Court is aware of the subtext of the applicant’s statement, which was further intensified by the reference to the webpage “www.babycaust.de”, it observes that the applicant did not – at least not explicitly – equate abortion with the Holocaust. Thus, the Court is not convinced that the prohibition of disseminating the leaflets was justified by a violation of the doctors’ personality rights due to the Holocaust reference alone. 64. Having regard to the foregoing considerations and, in particular, the fact that the applicant’s statement, which was at least not in contradiction with the legal situation with regard to abortion in Germany, contributed to a highly controversial debate of public interest, the Court, in view of the special degree of protection afforded to expressions of opinion which were made in the course of a debate on matters of public interest (see Tierbefreier e.V. v. Germany, no. 45192/09, § 51, 16 January 2014 with further references) and despite the margin of appreciation enjoyed by the Contracting States, comes to the conclusion that the domestic courts failed to strike a fair balance between the applicant’s right to freedom of expression and the doctors’ personality rights. 65. There has therefore been a breach of Article 10 of the Convention in respect of the order to desist from further disseminating the leaflets. (ii) Order to desist from mentioning the doctors’ names and address in the list of “abortion doctors” on the website 66. With regard to online publications, the Court has previously held that in the light of its accessibility and its capacity to store and communicate vast amounts of information, the Internet plays an important role in enhancing the public’s access to news and facilitating the dissemination of information in general (see Delfi AS, cited above, § 133 with further references). The Court also reiterates the Internet’s importance for the exercise of the right to freedom of expression generally (see Times Newspapers Ltd v. United Kingdom (nos. 1 and 2), no. 3002/03 and 23676/03, § 27, 10 March 2009). At the same time, 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 Editorial Board of Pravoye Delo and Shtekel v. Ukraine, no. 33014/05, § 63, ECHR 2011 (extracts)). 67. Defamatory and other types of clearly unlawful speech, including hate speech and speech inciting violence, can be disseminated as never before, worldwide, in a matter of seconds, and sometimes remain