Acta Universitatis Carolinae Iuridica (dále jen AUCI) je hlavním časopisem Právnické fakulty UK. Vychází od roku 1954, patří tak mezi tradiční právnické časopisy teoretického zaměření.
Jako obecný právnický časopis přináší delší studie i kratší články o jakýchkoli relevantních otázkách v právní teorii i mezinárodním, evropském a vnitrostátním právu. AUCI také publikuje materiály vztahující se k aktuálním otázkám legislativy. AUCI je recenzovaný časopis a přijímá příspěvky od českých i zahraničních autorů. Příspěvky zahraničních autorů jsou zveřejňovány v původním jazyku – slovenštině, angličtině, němčině, francouzštině.
AUCI je teoretický časopis pro otázky státu a práva. Jeho vydavatelem je Univerzita Karlova v Praze, Právnická fakulta, prostřednictvím nakladatelství Karolinum. Vychází čtyřikrát ročně, termíny vydání časopisu naleznete zde.
Články uveřejněné v časopise AUCI procházejí nezávislým recenzním řízením (peer review), které je oboustranně anonymní. Posuzovatelé z daného oboru vyjadřují své stanovisko k vědecké kvalitě příspěvku a vhodnosti publikace v časopisu. V případě připomínek je stanovisko zasíláno zpět autorovi s možností přepracování textu (blíže viz Pokyny pro autory – Průběh recenzního řízení).
Časopis AUCI (ISSN 0323-0619) je evidován v České národní bibliografii (vedena Národní knihovnou ČR) a v Index to Foreign Legal Periodicals (veden American Association of Law Libraries). AUCI má přiděleno evidenční číslo periodického tisku e. č. MK E 18585.
V r. 2021 byl jako první časopis Právnické fakulty Univerzity Karlovy zařazen do prestižní mezinárodní databáze Scopus. Tato databáze společnosti Elsevier je největší abstraktovou a citační databází recenzované literatury na světě. Od zařazení do elitní databáze Scopus si redakce časopisu slibuje nejen zvýšení čtenosti časopisu, ale také nárůst zájmu o publikaci příspěvků jak českých, tak zahraničních autorů.
AUCI je tzv. časopisem otevřeným a veškerý jeho obsah je zveřejňován jak na webu fakulty, tak na webových stránkách nakladatelství Karolinum. Přístup k němu je bezplatný. Domovská stránka časopisu AUCI je na webových stránkách Nakladatelství Karolinum.
Časopis AUCI využívá licenci Creative Commons: CC BY 4.0.
Dlouhodobou archivaci digitálního obsahu časopisu zajišťuje Portico.
AUC IURIDICA, Vol 71 No 3 (2025), 195–210
Restriction of Religiously Insensitive Expressions in the Context of the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed – When Experience Is Not Enough
Lucie Jurečková
DOI: https://doi.org/10.14712/23366478.2025.502
zveřejněno: 29. 08. 2025
Abstract
The ECtHR, when assessing religiously offensive, inappropriate or blasphemous speech under Article 10 of the ECHR, uses the protection of religious peace as a legitimate reason for restricting freedom of expression. It associates this concept with the protection of the religious feelings of believers. The approach chosen by the ECtHR to the concept of the protection of religious peace is not appropriate. This article identifies conditions under which religiously offensive, inappropriate or blasphemous ways of exercising freedom of expression can constitute a disruption of peaceful coexistence. It discusses reactions to the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed, which gradually led to the violent expression of disagreement among Muslims with their publication. The case draws attention to the question of whether it should be possible to restrict freedom of speech based on mere experience of violent reactions to religiously insensitive speech.
klíčová slova: freedom of expression; religious peace; protection of the religious feelings of believers; religiously offensive speech; the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed; caricature; public debate; violence
reference (63)
1. 6 killed in blast at Danish Embassy in Pakistan. In: NBC News [online]. 2. 6. 2008 [cit. 2024-07-20]. Available at: https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna24926365.
2. ALMOND, G. A. - APPLEBY, R. S. - SIVAN, E. Strong religion: The Rise of Fundamentalism Around the World. Chicago, London: The University of Chicago Press, 2003. CrossRef
3. AMMITZBØLL, P. - VIDINO, L. After the Danish Cartoon Controversy. Middle East Quarterly [online]. 2007, Vol. 14, No. 1 [cit. 2023-04-20]. Available at: https://www.meforum.org/1437/after-the-danish-cartoon-controversy/#_ftn33.021502865.html.
4. Animal Defenders International v. The United Kingdom [2013-04-22]. ECtHR, No. 48876/08.
5. Appleby and Others v. The United Kingdom [2003-05-06]. ECtHR, No. 44306/98.
6. Aydin Tatlav v. Turkey [2006-05-02]. ECtHR, No. 50692/99.
7. BOOT, E. R. The Public Interest: Clarifying a Legal Concept. Ratio Juris [online]. 2024, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 110-129 [cit. 2025-03-11]. CrossRef
8. BRABANT, M. Cartoons controversy 10 years on. In: DW [online]. 30. 9. 2015 [cit. 2024-09-20]. Available at: https://www.dw.com/en/free-speech-at-issue-10-years-after-muhammad-cartoons-controversy/a-18747856.
9. DOLOT, M. Execution by Hunger: The Hidden Holocaust. New York, London: W.W. Norton & Company, 1985.
10. DOUGLAS, R. 19th Century Ireland and the Cartoonists. In: The Policial Cartoon Society [online]. [cit. 2023-04-20]. Available at: https://www.original-political-cartoon.com/cartoon-history/19th-century-ireland-and-cartoonists/.
11. E.S. v. Austria [2018-10-25]. ECtHR, No. 38450/12.
12. Fressoz and Roire v. France [1999-01-21]. ECtHR, No. 29183/95.
13. Handyside v. The United Kingdom [1976-12-07]. ECtHR, No. 5493/72.
14. HAUKSDÓTTIR, E. Restricting Freedom of Expression for Religious Peace: On the ECHR's Approach to Blasphemy. The European Convention on Human Rights Law Review [online]. 2021, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 75-118 [cit. 2025-03-12]. CrossRef
15. HOLDER, C. Debating the Danish Cartoons: Civil Rights or Civil Power? UNB Law Journal [online]. 2006, Vol. 55, p. 183 [cit. 2025-03-13]. Available at: https://philpapers.org/archive/HOLDTD-6.pdf.
16. I.A. v. Turkey [2005-09-13]. ECtHR, No. 42571/98.
17. JOHNSON, I. S. Cartoons. The Public Opinion Quarterly [online]. 1937, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 21-44 [cit. 2023-06-20]. CrossRef
18. JONES, P. Respecting Beliefs and Rebuking Rushdie. British Journal of Political Science [online]. 1990, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 415-437 [cit. 2025-03-16]. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/193804. CrossRef
19. KHALIDI, T. Images of Muhammad. The Evolution of Portrayals of the Prophet in Islam Across the Centuries. New York: Doubleday, 2009.
20. KLAUSEN, J. The Cartoons That Shook the World. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009.
21. KNECHTLE, J. C. Blasphemy, Defamation of Religion and Religious Hate Speech: Is There a Difference That Makes a Difference? In: TEMPERMAN, J. - KOTLAY, A. (eds.). Blasphemy and Freedom of Expression. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2017, pp. 194-222. CrossRef
22. KOSAŘ, D. - BOBEK, M. Kapitola IV: Omezení práv a svobod zaručených v Úmluvě [Chapter IV: Restrictions on the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention]. In: KMEC, J. - KOSAŘ, D. - KRATOCHVÍL, J. - BOBEK, M. (eds.). Evropská úmluva o lidských právech [European Convention on Human Rights]. Praha: C. H. Beck, 2012, pp. 99-116.
23. LE BON, G. The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind [online]. In: Project Gutenberg. 1996 [cit. 2024-09-20]. Available at: https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/445/pg445.html.
24. Letter to His Excellency Mr. Anders Fogh Rasmussen Prime Minister Kingdom of Denmark. In: Roger Buch [online]. [cit. 2023-04-20]. Available at: https://www.rogerbuch.dk/jpabrev.pdf.
25. Leyla Şahin v. Turkey [2005-11-10]. ECtHR, No. 44774/98.
26. MAHMOOD, S. Religious Reason and Secular Affect: An Incommensurable Divide? In: ASAD, T. - BROWN, W. - BUTLER, J. - MAHMOOD, S. (eds.). Is Critic Secular? Blasphemy, Injury, and Free Speech. Berkeley: The Townsend Center for the Humanities University of California, 2009, pp. 64-100. CrossRef
27. MANSBRIDGE, J. On the Contested Nature of the Public Good. In: POWELL, W. W. - CLEMENS, E. S. (eds.). Private Action and the Public Good. New Haven, London: Yale University Press, 1998, pp. 3-19.
28. Medžlis Islamske Zajednice Brčko and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [2017-06-27]. ECtHR, No. 17224/11.
29. MCHARG, A. Reconciling Human Rights and the Public Interest: Conceptual Problems and Doctrinal Uncertainty in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. The Modern Law Review [online]. 1999, Vol. 62, No. 5, pp. 671-696 [cit. 2025-03-13]. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1097381. CrossRef
30. MILANOVIC, M. Legitimizing Blasphemy Laws Through the Backdoor: The European Court's Judgment in E.S. v. Austria. In: EJIL: Talk! Blog of the European Journal of International Law [online]. 29. 10. 2018 [cit. 2025-03-09]. Available at: https://www.ejiltalk.org/legitimizing-blasphemy-laws-through-the-backdoor-the-european-courts-judgment-in-e-s-v-austria/.
31. Morice v. France [2015-04-23]. ECtHR, No. 29369/10.
32. Mouvement raëlien Suisse v. Switzerland [2012-07-13]. ECtHR, No. 16354/06.
33. Murphy v. Ireland [2003-07-10]. ECtHR, No. 44179/98.
34. NIEUWENHUIS, A. The Concept of Pluralism in the Case-Law of the European Court of Human Rights. European Constitutional Law Review [online]. 2007, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 367-384 [cit. 2023-05-05]. Available at: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/european-constitutional-law-review/article/concept-of-pluralism-in-the-case-law-of-the-ecthr/67A17EC85489CDEBBE3AD9F0853D3EF5. CrossRef
35. Nit S.R.L. v. The Republic of Moldova [2022-04-05]. ECtHR, No. 28470/12.
36. NOORLANDER, P. In Fear of Cartoons. European Human Rights Law Review [online]. 2015, No. 2, p. 116 [cit. 2023-04-20]. Available at: https://www.mediadefence.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Noorlanderpp115-122_2015_EHRLR_Issue_2_Print_FINAL.pdf.
37. O'FLYNN, I. Deliberating About the Public Interest. Res Publica [online]. 2010, Vol. 16, pp. 299-315 [cit. 2025-03-12]. CrossRef
38. Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria [1994-09-20]. ECtHR, No. 13470/87.
39. Ozgur Gundem v. Turkey [2000-03-16]. ECtHR, No. 23144/93.
40. PATRICK, J. The Curious Persistence of Blasphemy. Florida Journal of International Law [online]. 2011, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 187-220 [cit. 2024-02-26]. Available at: https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1542&context=fjil.
41. PEETUSH, A. K. Caricaturizing Freedom: Islam, Offence, and The Danish Cartoon Controversy. Studies in South Asian Film and Media [online]. 2009, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 173-178 [cit. 2025-03-13]. Available at: https://philarchive.org/archive/PEECFI. CrossRef
42. POLGREEN, L. Nigeria Counts 100 Deaths Over Danish Caricatures. In: The New York Times [online]. 24. 2. 2006 [cit. 2024-06-20]. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/24/world/africa/nigeria-counts-100-deaths-over-danish-caricatures.html.
43. Pope Francis on Freedom of Speech: 'One Cannot Make Fun of Faith'. In: NBC News [online]. 15. 1. 2015 [cit. 2023-06-20]. Available at: https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/paris-magazine-attack/pope-francis-freedom-speech-one-cannot-make-fun-faith-n286631.
44. PUPPINCK, G. The censorship of speech about Islam before the European Court of Human Rights: the appalling case of E. S. v. Austria. Journal of the Catholic Social Thought. 2020, No. 24, pp. 104-115.
45. Rabczewska v. Poland [2022-09-15]. ECtHR, No. 8257/13.
46. ROGERSON, B. The Prophet Muhammad: A Biography. London: Abacus, 2004.
47. ROSE, F. Why I Published the Muhammad Cartoons. In: Spiegel International [online]. 31. 5. 2006 [cit. 2023-08-15]. Available at: https://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/opinion-why-i-published-the-muhammad-cartoons-a-418930.html.
48. ROSE, F. Why I Published Those Cartoons. In: The Washington Post [online]. 19. 2. 2006 [cit. 2023-06-20]. Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/17/AR2006021702499.html.
49. S.A.S. v. France [2014-07-01]. ECtHR, No. 43835/11.
50. Serif v. Greece [1999-12-14]. ECtHR, No. 38178/97.
51. SHADID, A. - SULLIVAN, K. Anatomy of the Cartoon Protest Movement. In: The Washington Post [online]. 15. 2. 2006 [cit. 2023-06-20]. Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/15/AR2006021502865.html.
52. Socialist Party and Others v. Turkey [1998-05-25]. ECtHR, No. 21237/93.
53. STREICHER, H. L. On a Theory of Political Caricature. Comparative Studies in Society and History [online]. 1967, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 427-445 [cit. 2023-04-20]. CrossRef
54. The Cartoon Crisis - how it unfolded. In: Jyllands-Posten [online]. 11. 3. 2008 [cit. 2024-07-25]. Available at: https://jyllands-posten.dk/international/ECE3931398/The-Cartoon-Crisis-%E2%80%93-how-it-unfolded/.
55. TSAKYRAKIS, S. Proportionality: An assault on human rights? International Journal of Constitutional Law [online]. 2009, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 468-493 [cit. 2025-03-13]. CrossRef
56. Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) [2024-06-25]. ECtHR, No. 20958/14, 38334/18.
57. United Communist Party of Turkey and Others v. Turkey [1998-01-30]. ECtHR, No. 19392/92.
58. VAJDA, M. M. The Right to Mock, Ridicule and Criticize Religion-Exploring The Limits of Free Speech in a Democratic and Just Society. Gonzaga Law Review [online]. 2020, Vol. 55, No. 2, pp. 273-289 [cit. 2025-03-12]. Available at: https://gonzaga-law-review.scholasticahq.com/article/12074-the-right-to-mock-ridicule-and-criticize-religion-exploring-the-limits-of-free-speech-in-a-democratic-and-just-society.
59. VIRGILI, T. Rabczewska v. Poland and blasphemy before the ECtHR: A neverending story of inconsistency. In: Strasbourg Observers [online]. 21. 10. 2022 [cit. 2023-02-15]. Available at: https://strasbourgobservers.com/2022/10/21/rabczewska-v-poland-and-blasphemy-before-the-ecthr-a-neverending-story-of-inconsistency/.
60. WARD, K. Third Introductory Paper. In: Commission for Racial Equality. Law, Blasphemy and the Multi-Faith Society: Report of a seminar [online]. Discussion Papers 1. London: Commission for Racial Equality, 1990, pp. 30-39 [cit. 2025-03-11]. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/community.28327875.
61. WARD, M. Anti-cartoon protests go online. In: BBC News [online]. 8. 2. 2006 [cit. 2023-06-20]. Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4692518.stm.
62. Wingrove v. The United Kingdom [1996-11-25]. ECtHR, No. 17419/90.
63. Young, James and Webster v. The United Kingdom [1981-08-13]. ECtHR, No. 7601/76, 7806/77.
Restriction of Religiously Insensitive Expressions in the Context of the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed – When Experience Is Not Enough is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
230 x 157 mm
vychází: 4 x ročně
cena tištěného čísla: 65 Kč
ISSN: 0323-0619
E-ISSN: 2336-6478
