57 151. The Court has understood this by indicating that the same concept of public order in a democratic society requires the guarantee of the widest possible circulation of news, ideas and opinions, as well as the widest access to information by society as a whole. Freedom of expression constitutes the primary and basic element of the public order of a democratic society, which is not conceivable without free debate and the possibility that dissenting voices be full heard99. 152. The European Court has also recognized this criterion, when it stated that freedom of expression constituted one of the essential pillars of democratic society and a fundamental condition for its progress and the personal development of each individual. This freedom should not only be guaranteed with regard to the dissemination of information and ideas that are received favorably or considered inoffensive or indifferent, but also with regard to those that offend, are unwelcome or shock the State or any sector of the population 100. 153. According to the European Court, the foregoing is of particular importance when applied to the press. It not only implies that it is the task of the media to transmit information and ideas on matters of public interest, but also that the public has the right to receive them101. 154. When evaluating an alleged restriction or limitation to freedom of expression, the Court should not restrict itself to examining the act in question, but should also examine this act in the light of the facts of the case as a whole, including the circumstances and context in which they occurred 102. Taking this into consideration, the Court will examine whether, in the context of the instant case, there was a violation of Mr. Ivcher Bronstein’s right to freedom of expression. 155. The European Court has emphasized that Article 10(2) of the European Convention, on freedom of expression, leaves a very reduced margin to any restriction of political discussion or discussion of matters of public interest 103. According to this Court, [...] the acceptable limits to criticism are broader with regard to the Government that in relation to the private citizen or even a politician. In a democratic system, the acts or omissions of the Government should be subject to rigorous examination, not only by the legislative and judicial authorities, but also by public opinion104. 99 Cf. Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism (Articles 13 and 29 American Convention on Human Rights), supra note 95, para. 69. 100 Cf. “The Last Temptation of Christ” case (Olmedo Bustos et al.) , supra note 6, para. 69; Eur. Court H.R., Handyside case, judgment of 7 December 1976, Series A No. 24, para. 49; Eur. Court H.R., The Sunday Times case, judgment of 26 April 1979, Series A No. 30, paras. 59 and 65; Eur. Court H.R., Barthold judgment of 25 March 1985, Series A no. 90, para. 55; Eur. Court H.R., Lingens, judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A No. 103, para. 41; Eur. Court H.R Müller and Others judgment of 24 May 1988, Series A No. 133, para. 33; and Eur. Court HR, Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria judgment of 20 September 1994, Series A No. 295-A, para. 49. 101 Cf. Eur. Court H.R., The Sunday Times case, supra note 100, para. 65. 102 Cf. Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism (Articles 13 and 29 American Convention on Human Rights), supra note 95, para. 42; Eur. Court H.R., Müller and Others judgment of 24 May 1988, Series A No. 133, para. 32; and Eur. Court H.R., case of Sürek and Özdemir v. Turkey, judgment of 8 July 1999, para. 57 (iii). 103 Cf. Eur. Court H.R., case of Sürek and Özdemir v. Turkey, supra note 102, para. 60. 104 Cf. Eur. Court H.R., Case of Sürek and Özdemir v. Turkey, supra note 102, para. 60.