Tokens: 6
.
I
also
agree
,
in
general
terms
,
with
the
logic
of
the
American
“
flag
burning
”
cases
where
,
inter
alia
,
the
public
interest
to
show
proper
respect
for
the
national
emblem
could
not
justify
government
interference
with
the
symbolic
act
of
casting
contempt
upon
the
American
flag
.
This
act
may
be
considered
analogous
to
a
“
collective
insult
”
,
directed
at
highly
respected
national
values
(
see
the
following
judgments
of
the
United
States
Supreme
Court
:
Street
v.
New
York
,
394
U.S.
576
(
1969
)
;
Texas
v.
Johnson
,
491
U.S.
397
(
1989
)
;
United
States
v.
Eichman
,
496
U.S.
310
(
1990
)
)
.
“
Symbolic
speech
”
,
offensive
even
to
the
supreme
national
values
,
in
my
view
deserves
,
mutatis
mutandis
,
protection
under
Article
10
of
the
Convention
whenever
an
interference
is
not
proportional
and
necessary
in
a
democratic
society
.
Labels: O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O