119. It is important to emphasize that speech during electoral contests allows for vehement and biting criticism that may not be well-received by its targets, or even by the general public. Ideas that are received favorably or seen as inoffensive or indifferent are not the only ones that enjoy protection. Such are the requirements of a plural, tolerant, and open society, without which true democracy does not exist.71 120. It bears noting in this respect that freedom of expression protects not only the content of information and ideas but also the manner or tone in which they are expressed.72 Although any person who takes part in a public debate should abstain from exceeding certain boundaries, he or she may use a certain degree of exaggeration and even provocation.73 121. Based on the foregoing considerations, the IACHR is of the opinion that the penalty imposed in this case has not been proven to be related to the need to protect the stated objectives. His speech must be understood as part of a broader debate on the protection of workers’ organization within national industries and the implications for the rights of the most vulnerable workers. Indeed, the information and opinions disseminated were of clear public interest, inasmuch as they revealed the breach of the company’s legal duties and publicly exposed the company’s intention to dissolve the Industrial Community. Although some of Mr. Lagos del Campo’s statements could potentially affect the company’s reputation, it is clear that they were not baseless, and that they were made by the victim in his capacity as president of the Electoral Committee of the workers’ organization and within the framework of verifying and reporting irregularities in the calling of elections for their representatives. That is, the expressions of Mr. Lagos del Campo constitute permissible criticism in the context of labor elections and cannot be considered unfounded or devoid of a reasonable basis. 122. Also, Mr. Lagos del Campo’s statements could have been investigated, corrected, or explained by the company. The company was fully capable of clarifying the information contained in his statement through multiple channels. To this extent, it is clear that there were other measures less harmful than dismissal that the company could have used to defend the honor of those who felt that they were adversely affected. It should be recalled that in the workplace the protection of legitimate aims, such as a harmonious workplace or the reputation of individuals, can not lead to the imposition of a duty of absolute loyalty to employers or the the worker’s subjection – especially to leaders of workers – to the interests of the employer. 123. In addittion, the dismmissal cannot be considered a strictly proportional measure. Indeed, in this case, the most severe punishment provided for by law was applied even though no serious harm was ever proven at trial. The dismissal of Mr. Lagos del Campo and the consequences of his later unemployment had a noticeable effect on his right to freedom of expression as leader of workers. The severity of the restriction in the case is accentuated because not only the interests of Mr. Lagos del Campo were affected , but also the right of thall workers to access information on matters concerning them. 124. The Peruvian judicial authorities were advised of these facts by the alleged victim, who requested the right to judicial protection in view of the violation of his right to freedom of expression as an employee representative. Indeed, in his complaint before national courts, Mr. Lagos del Campo argued that 71 See, ECHR. Case of Lingens v. Austria, Judgment of 8 July 1986, Application 9815/82, para. 41; Case of Observer and Guardian v. United Kingdom, Judgment of 26 November 1991, Application 13585/88, para. 59; Case of Thorgeir Thorgeirson v. Iceland, Judgment of 25 June 1992, Application 13778/88, para. 63. 72 I/A Court H.R., Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111. Para. 78; ECHR, Case of De Haes and Gijsels v. Belgium, Judgment of 24 November 1997, Application 19983/92, para. 48; Case of Feldek v. Slovakia, Judgment of 12 July 2001, Application 29032/95, para. 72. 73 The Inter-American Court ruled on this issue in the Case of Ivcher Bronstein. Merits, Reparations and Costs, para. 152, and has consistently reiterated this opinion in its case law; see: Case of Herrera Ulloa, paras. 113 & 126; Case of Kimel, para. 88; Case of Ríos, et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 194, para. 105; Case of Perozo, et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 195, para. 116. A similar trend is seen in earlier cases of the European Court of Human Rights: Case of De Haes and Gijsels v. Belgium, Judgment of 24 November 1997, Application 19983/92, para. 46; Case of Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway, Judgment of 20 May 1999, Application 21980/93, para. 59; Case of Otegi Mondragon v. Spain, Judgment of 15 March 2011, Application 2034/07, paras. 54 & 56. 23