the interpretation and application of these provisions in this case that the discrepancy arises in relation to the findings of the Judgment. I. FREEDOM OF THOUGHT AND EXPRESSION A. Article 13 of the Convention In relation to freedom of thought and expression, Article 13 of the Convention, 363 the object and purpose of which is to ensure freedom of thought and expression, establishes that everyone has the right to this and, consequently, there can be no prior censorship to the exercise of this right, and it cannot be restricted indirectly for any reason whatsoever. Nevertheless, it is permitted that the exercise of this right be subject to the subsequent imposition of liability, which shall be expressly established by law and be necessary to ensure respect for the rights or reputation of others, or the protection of national security, public order, or public health or morals. The Court has developed the foregoing in its case law. Indeed, it is therefore appropriate to stress the words of the Judgment itself indicating 364 “that this article protects the right to seek, receive and impart ideas and information of all kinds, as well as to receive and be aware of the information and ideas imparted by others 365”;” and that “[f]or the ordinary citizen, the awareness of the opinions of others or the information that others possess is as important as the right to impart his own opinions and information.” 366 In addition, the Court has indicated in another of its judgments, that “[f]reedom of expression is a cornerstone of the very existence of a democratic society,” that “[i]s indispensable for the formation of public opinion,” that “[i]s also a condition sine qua non for political parties, trade unions, scientific and cultural associations and, in general, those who wish to influence the collectivity to be able to evolve fully,” and that “[i]t is, in brief, a condition for the community, when making its choices, to be sufficiently informed.” 367 363 Article 13 of the Convention indicates that: “1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought and expression. This right includes freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing, in print, in the form of art, or through any other medium of one's choice. 2. The exercise of the right provided for in the foregoing paragraph shall not be subject to prior censorship but shall be subject to subsequent imposition of liability, which shall be expressly established by law to the extent necessary to ensure: (a) respect for the rights or reputations of others; or (b) the protection of national security, public order, or public health or morals. 3. The right of expression may not be restricted by indirect methods or means, such as the abuse of government or private controls over newsprint, radio broadcasting frequencies, or equipment used in the dissemination of information, or by any other means tending to impede the communication and circulation of ideas and opinions. 4. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 2 above, public entertainments may be subject by law to prior censorship for the sole purpose of regulating access to them for the moral protection of childhood and adolescence. 5. Any propaganda for war and any advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitute incitements to lawless violence or to any other similar action against any person or group of persons on any grounds including those of race, color, religion, language, or national origin shall be considered as offenses punishable by law.” 364 Paras. 119 and 123 of the Judgment. 365 Para. 119 of the Judgment, citing: Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism (Arts. 13 and 29 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory opinion OC-5/85 of November 13, 1985. Series A No. 5, paras. 32 and 83, and Case of Vélez Restrepo and family members v. Colombia. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 3, 2012. Series C No. 248, para. 137. 366 Para. 119 of the Judgment, citing: Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism (Arts. 13 and 29 of the American Convention on Human Rights), supra, para. 32, and Case of Vélez Restrepo and family members v. Colombia, supra, para. 138. 367 Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism (Arts. 13 and 29 American Convention on Human Rights), supra, para. 70; Case of “The Last Temptation of Christ” (Olmedo Bustos et al.) v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 5, 2001. Series C No. 73, paras. 64 to 68, and Case 3