| Comment | The courts would side with the OO, probably.
The ruling says "The right to freedom of expression is not an unrestricted right on particular grounds"; to me, this means the courts obviously recognize that the OO has a right to freedom of expression and assembly, but that this freedom can be restricted on particular grounds.
Today, the OO lost because their overall rights of expression and assembly have not been taken away entirely, but have only been restricted in line with what the law allows. If those rights were restricted in total, or in a way the law doesn't allow for, then the OO win that argument. |
|---|