6. Prior censorship, according to the Inter-American Court, is ‘always incompatible with the full enjoyment’ of the right to free expression.865 For example, news is a perishable commodity and ‘to delay its publication, even for a short period, may well deprive it of all its value and interest’.866 Penalties imposed after publication are likely to be considered more proportionate than an injunction restraining publication.867 7. Human rights treaties do, however, provide circumstances in which it may be permissible to limit the right to free expression.868 Political and public interest expression 8. Political expression, which includes expression concerning the public interest, is the most protected form of freedom of speech.869 As the Human Rights Committee has noted in its General Comment No.34 (2011) on Article 19: ‘the free communication of information and ideas about public and political issues between citizens, candidates and elected representatives is essential. This implies a free press and other media able to comment on public issues without censorship or restraint and to inform public opinion. The public also has a corresponding right to receive media output’.870 9. Therefore where a journalist published comments which criticised a public figure, the Human Rights Committee noted ‘in circumstances of public debate in a democratic society, especially in the media, concerning figures in the public domain, the value placed by the Covenant on uninhibited expression is particularly high’.871 Media should be able to criticise and pass comment on political figures and political issues without restraint.872 10. Membership of opposition political parties or trade unions is protected and any ‘blanket restrictions’ will violate the right to free expression.873 11. The Human Rights Council has also called on States to promote respect and ensure women’s exercise of freedom of opinion and expression, including as members of NGOs and associations, and in their participation in societies.874 865 Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by law for the Practice of Journalism, Advisory Opinion OC-5/85, 13th November 1985, Series A, No.5, p.103. 866 European Court, Observer and Guardian v UK, 26 November 1991. 867 European Court, Stoll v Switzerland, 10 December 2007. 868 Human Rights Committee, Communication 458/1991, Mukong v Cameroon, 21 July 1994; Communication 1022/2001, Velichkin v Belarus, 20 October 2005. 869 European Court, Vgt Verein gegen Tierfabriken v Switzerland, 28 September 2009. 870 CCPR/C/GC/34, para 13. 871 Communication 1180/2003, Zelijo Bodrozic v Serbia and Montenegro, CCPR/C/85/D/1180/2003 (2006), para 7.2. See European Court, Fatullayev v Azerbaijan, 4 October 2010. 872 Human Rights Committee, General Comment No.25, A/51/40, Vol.1, para 25. 873 African Commission, Communications 48/90 et al, Amnesty International and others v Sudan, 15 November 1999, para 77. 874 A/HRC/RES/23/2, The Role of freedom of opinion and expression in women’s empowerment, 24 June 2013, para 3. 140