SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUGDMENT
32
(c) prohibition on discussion of the offences of others (see paragraphs 45
(a), item (ii), and 63 above): Mr. Silver’s letter no. 7;
(d) prohibition on complaints calculated to hold the authorities up to
contempt (see paragraphs 45 (a), item (iii), and 64 above): Mr. Tuttle’s
letter no. 17;
(e) prohibition on threats of violence (see paragraphs 45 (a), item (iv),
and 65 above): Mr. Cooper’s letters nos. 28-31;
(f) Mr. Noe’s letter no. 12, which was delayed pending receipt of
instructions from the Home Office (see paragraph 71 above).
The Commission found that each of the above interferences was
foreseeable from the text of the Rules and was therefore "in accordance with
the law". The applicants disputed this on the ground that the two further
requirements which, in their submission, flowed from that expression (see
paragraphs 89 and 90 above) had not been satisfied.
In view of the position which the Court has taken in those paragraphs on
the applicants’ said submission, it concurs with the Commission’s finding.
B. Did the interferences have aims that are legitimate under Article 8
§ 2 (art. 8-2)?
96. The applicants did not allege that the restrictions at issue in the
present case were designed or applied for a purpose other than those listed
in paragraph 2 of Article 8 (art. 8-2). The Government pleaded before the
Commission that the aim pursued was "the prevention of disorder", "the
prevention of crime", "the protection of morals" and/or "the protection of
the rights and freedoms of others", and the Commission considered whether
each interference was "necessary" for one or more of those purposes.
This matter was not discussed or questioned before the Court. It sees no
reason to doubt that each interference had an aim that was legitimate under
Article 8 (art. 8).
C. Were the interferences "necessary in a democratic society"?
1. General principles
97. On a number of occasions, the Court has stated its understanding of
the phrase "necessary in a democratic society", the nature of its functions in
the examination of issues turning on that phrase and the manner in which it
will perform those functions. It suffices here to summarise certain
principles:
(a) the adjective "necessary" is not synonymous with "indispensable",
neither has it the flexibility of such expressions as "admissible", "ordinary",