8 are aimed.”33 26. From this perspective, the European Court “recall[ed] that freedom of expression, as secured in paragraph 1 of Article 10 (art. 10-1), constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and one of the basic conditions for its progress.”34 Hence, the dissemination of information, through the press or any other means of communication, “affords the public one of the best means of discovering and forming an opinion of the ideas and attitudes of political leaders.”35 27. With regard to the audio-visual media, such as radio and television, the European Court has established that they “have a particularly important role to ensure the right to freedom of expression. Because of their power to convey messages through sound and images, such media have more immediate and powerful effects than print.”36 “The function of television and radio as familiar sources of entertainment in the intimacy of the listener’s or viewer’s home further reinforces their impact.”37 Also, that Court has been very emphatic in considering “that in such a sensitive sector as the audio-visual media, in addition to its negative duty of non-interference, the State has a positive obligation to put in place an appropriate legislative and administrative framework to guarantee effective pluralism.”38 28. As the European Court of Human Rights, the Inter-American Court has indicated that freedom of expression should not only be guaranteed as regards the dissemination of “information or ideas that are favorably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also as regards those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population.39 In the opinion of the Inter-American Court, this has particular importance when it applies to social communication media, because it not only means that the media have the task of transmitting information and ideas on matters of public interest, but also that the public has the right to receive them.40 29. In the cases of Ríos et al. and Perozo et al., both against Venezuela, the Inter-American Court indicated that freedom of expression, especially in matters of public interest, is a cornerstone in the very existence of a democratic society. In these case, the Inter-American Court reiterated the need to guarantee the dissemination of information or ideas that are received favorably or that are considered as inoffensive or indifferent, but also those that result unpleasant for the State. These are the demands of pluralism that entail tolerance and a spirit of openness, without which there cannot be a democratic society.41 33 Case of Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy, Application No. 38433/09, June 7, 2012, para. 130. Case of Lingens v. Austria, Series A No. 103, July 8, 1986, para. 41, and Case of Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy, para. 131. 34 35 Case of Handyside v. The United Kingdom, para. 49, and Case of Lingens v. Austria, paras. 41 and 42. See, Case of Jersild v. Denmark, Series A No. 298, September 23, 1994, para. 31, and Case of Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark [GC], No. 49017/99, December 17, 2004, para.79, ECHR 2004-XI. 36 37 Case of Murphy v. Ireland, No. 44179/98, July 10, 2003, para. 74, ECHR 2003-IX, and Case of Centro Europa 7 S.R.L. and Di Stefano v. Italy, para. 132. 38 Case of Centro Europa 7 S.R.L. and Di Stefano v. Italy, para. 134. Case of “The Last Temptation of Christ” (Olmedo Bustos) v. Chile, para. 69; Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru, para. 152; Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica, para. 113; Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay, para. 83, mutatis mutandi: Case of Handyside v. The United Kingdom, para. 49; Case of The Sunday Times v. The United Kingdom, paras. 59 and 65; Case of Barthold v. Germany, Application No. 8734/79, March 25, 1985, para. 55; Case of Lingens v. Austria, para. 41; Case of Müller v. Switzerland, Application No. 10737/84, May 24,1988, para. 33; and Case of Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria, Application No. 13470/87, September 20, 1994, para. 49. 39 40 Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. para. 153, and Case of The Sunday Times v. The United Kingdom, para. 65. 41 Case of Ríos et al. v. Venezuela, para. 105.