Acta Universitatis Carolinae Iuridica (AUCI) is the main journal of the Faculty of Law of Charles University. It has been published since 1954 and is one of the traditional law journals with a theoretical focus.
As a general law journal, it publishes longer studies and shorter articles on any relevant issues in legal theory and international, European and national law. AUCI also publishes material relating to current legislative issues. AUCI is a peer-reviewed journal and accepts submissions from both Czech and international authors. Contributions by foreign authors are published in their original language – Slovak, English, German, French.
AUCI is a theoretical journal for questions of state and law. It is published by Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Law, through Karolinum Press. It is published four times a year, the dates of publication can be found here.
Articles published in AUCI undergo an independent peer review process, which is anonymous on both sides. Reviewers from the field give their opinion on the scientific quality of the paper and the suitability of publication in the journal. In the case of comments, the opinion is sent back to the author with the possibility of revising the text (see Guidelines for Authors – Per Review Process for more details).
The AUCI journal (ISSN 0323-0619) is registered in the Czech National Bibliography (kept by the National Library of the Czech Republic) and in the Index to Foreign Legal Periodicals (kept by the American Association of Law Libraries). AUCI has been assigned a periodical registration number MK E 18585.
In 2021 the journal AUCI was the first journal of the Faculty of Law of Charles University to be included in the prestigious international database Scopus. This Elsevier database is the largest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed literature in the world. The editors of the journal expect from the inclusion in the elite Scopus database not only an increase in the readership of the journal, but also an increase in interest in the publication of papers by both Czech and foreign authors.
AUCI is an open journal and all its content is published both on the faculty website and on the Karolinum Press website. Access to it is free of charge. The homepage of AUCI is on the Karolinum Press website.
The AUCI journal uses the Creative Commons license: CC BY 4.0.
Long-term archiving of the digital content of the journal is provided by 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
published online: 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.
keywords: 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
references (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
periodicity: 4 x per year
print price: 65 czk
ISSN: 0323-0619
E-ISSN: 2336-6478
