9.2 The Commhtee wishes further to poim out that it is not cahed upon to review the interpretation of paragraph 9 (2) of chapter 20 of the Finnish Penal Code. The authors of the communication have ad­ vanced no vahd argument which could indicate that the construction placed upon this provision by the Finnish tribunals was not made bona fide. Accordingly, the Committee's task is confined to clarifying whether the restrictions apphed against the aheged victims, irrespec­ tive of the scope of penal prohibitions under Finnish penal law, disclose a breach of any of the rights under the Covenant. 9.3 In addition, the Committee wishes to stress that it has only been entrusted whh the mandate of examin­ ing whether an individual has suffered an actual viola­ tion of his rights. It cannot review in the abstract whether national legislation contravenes the Covenant, ahhough such legislation may, in particular cir­ cumstances, produce adverse effects which directly af­ fect the individual, making him thus a victim in the sense contemplated by articles 1 and 2 of the Optional Protocol. The Committee refers in this connection to hs earher views on communication No. 35/1978 (S. Aumeeruddy-Cziffra and 19 other Mauritian women v. Mauritius supra). 10.3 The Committee feels, however, that the infor­ mation before it is sufficient to formulate its views on the communication. It has to be noted, first, that pubhc morals differ widely. There is no universaUy apphcable common standard. Consequently, in this respect, a cer­ tain margin of discretion must be accorded to the responsible national authorities. 10.4 The Committee finds that it cannot question the decision of the responsible organs of the Finnish Broadcasting Corporation that radio and TV are not the appropriate forums to discuss issues related to homosexuality, as far as a programme could be judged as encouraging homosexual behaviour. According to ar­ ticle 19 (3), the exercise of the rights provided for in ar­ ticle 19 (2) carries with h special duties and respon­ sibilities for those organs. As far as radio and TV pro­ grammes are concerned, the audience cannot be con­ trolled. In particular, harmful effects on minors cannot be excluded. II. Accordingly, the Human Rights Committee is of the view that there has been no violation of the rights of the authors of the communication under article 19 (2) of the Covenant. 10.1 Concerning Leo Rafael Hertzberg, the Com­ mittee observes that he cannot validly claim to be a vic­ tim of a breach by the State party of his right under ar­ ticle 19 (2) of the Covenant. The programme in which he took part was actually broadcast in 1976. No sanc­ tions were imposed against him. Nor has the author claimed that the programme restrictions as applied by FBC would in any way personally affect him. The sole fact that the author takes a personal interest in the dissemination of information about homosexuality does not make him a victim in the sense required by the Op­ tional Protocol. 10.2 With regard to the two censored programmes of Mrs. Nikula and of Marko and Tuovi Putkonen, the Commhtee accepts the contention of the authors that their rights under article 19 (2) of the Covenant have been restricted. While not every individual can be deemed to hold a right to express himself through a medium like TV, whose avaüable time is hmited, the situation may be different when a programme has been produced for transmission within the framework of a broadcasting organization with the general approval of the responsible authorities. On the other hand, article 19 (3) permits certain restrictions on the exercise of the rights protected by article 19 (2), as are provided by law and are necessary for the protection of public order or of public heahh or morals. In the context of the present communication, the Finnish Government has specific­ ally invoked public morals as justifying the actions com­ plained of. The Committee has considered whether, in order to assess the necessity of those actions, it should invite the parties to submit the fuh text of the censored programmes. In fact, only on the basis of these texts could it be possible to determine whether the censored programmes were mainly or exclusively made up of fac­ tual information about issues related to homosexuality. APPENDIX Individual opinion submitted by a member of the Human Rights Committee under rule 94 (3) of the Committee's provisional rules of procedure Communication No. 61/1979 Individual opinion appended to the Committee's views at the re­ quest of Mr. Torkel Opsahl: Ahhough 1 agree with the conclusion of the Committee, 1 wish to clarify certain points. This conclusion prejudges neither the right to be different and live accordingly, protected by article 17 of the Covenant, nor the right to have general freedom of expression in this respect, pro­ tected by article 19. Under article 19 (2) and subject to article 19 (3), everyone must in principle have the right to impart informa­ tion and ideas—positive or negative—about homosexuality and discuss any problem relating to it freely, through any media of his choice and on his own responsibility. Moreover, in my view the conception and contents of "public morals" referred to in article 19 (3) are relative and changing. Stateimposed restrictions on freedom of expression must allow for this fact and should not be applied so as to perpetuate prejudice or pro­ mote intolerance. It is of special importance to protect freedom of expression as regards minority views, including those that offend, shock or disturb the majority. Therefore, even if such laws as paragraph 9 (2) of chapter 20 of the Finnish Penal Code may reflect prevailing moral conceptions, this is in itself not sufficient to justify it under article 19 (3). It must also be shown that the apphcation of the restriction is "necessary". However, as the Committee has noted, this law has not been directly applied to any of the alleged victims. The question remains whether they have been more indirectly affected by it in a way which can be said to interfere with their freedom of expression, and if so, whether the grounds were justifiable. It is clear that nobody—and in particular no State—has any duty under the Covenant to promote publicity for information and ideas of all kinds. Access to media operated by others is always and necessarily more limited than the general freedom of expression. It follows that such access may be controlled on grounds which do not have to be justified under article 19 (3). 126