Disinformation and Democracy on the Docket: Reformulating the Approach to Electoral Disinformation under the ECHR

With the pending case of <i>Bradshaw and others v United Kingdom</i>, the European Court of Human Rights finds itself at a crossroads: it can either cement its free elections jurisprudence under article 3 of Protocol 1 (P1-3) of the European Convention on Human Rights or it can recalibrate and refine it to better safeguard the electorate's democratic rights in the face of electoral disinformation and foreign information manipulation and interference. This article makes the doctrinal and normative case for the latter option. We scrutinise three limitations in the jurisprudence: first, the Court's individualised approach to electoral falsehoods under P1-3, at the expense of the <i>electorate's</i> rights as informed democratic participants; second, the focus on <i>reactive</i> positive obligations to combat electoral disinformation, rather than proactive measures to ensure the free expression of voter choice; and finally, the lack of clarity about how the rights to free elections and to freedom of expression should be read harmoniously where they conflict.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Oxford Journal of Legal Studies
Published
2025-01-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqaf026
Primary Topic
Freedom of Expression and Defamation
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Disinformation and Democracy on the Docket: Reformulating the Approach to Electoral Disinformation under the ECHR

Katie Pentney, Ethan Shattock
Oxford Journal of Legal Studies
Freedom of Expression and Defamation
article

Disinformation and Democracy on the Docket: Reformulating the Approach to Electoral Disinformation under the ECHR

Katie Pentney, Ethan Shattock
article en

Abstract

With the pending case of <i>Bradshaw and others v United Kingdom</i>, the European Court of Human Rights finds itself at a crossroads: it can either cement its free elections jurisprudence under article 3 of Protocol 1 (P1-3) of the European Convention on Human Rights or it can recalibrate and refine it to better safeguard the electorate's democratic rights in the face of electoral disinformation and foreign information manipulation and interference. This article makes the doctrinal and normative case for the latter option. We scrutinise three limitations in the jurisprudence: first, the Court's individualised approach to electoral falsehoods under P1-3, at the expense of the <i>electorate's</i> rights as informed democratic participants; second, the focus on <i>reactive</i> positive obligations to combat electoral disinformation, rather than proactive measures to ensure the free expression of voter choice; and finally, the lack of clarity about how the rights to free elections and to freedom of expression should be read harmoniously where they conflict.

Oxford Journal of Legal StudiesVol. 45(4)
Openalex Percentile: Top 52%
Freedom of Expression and Defamation
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.