ET
you need to inform yourself of the whole case rather than going for the textual equivalent of a soundbite. The article in question was a pretty scathing document on the activities of mining companies in Congo in general. The magazine was acquitted for writing this. They were only condmned for a minute aspect of their publication that was held to be seperate from the article as such, namely a cartoon that was published on the cover of the magazine of a man called Forrest, who is a very influential person in the Congo.
Regardless of what you may think about the condemnation of the cartoon, you cannot claim that this is censorship. That's idiotic since it is only censorship if the publication had been halted prior to publication.
As for the freedom of expression aspect. The reasoning behind it is actually very american - litteral. The article of the constitution was drafted with writers in mind and not cartoonists, so there was an acquital on the part of the writing but not on the part of the imaging.
The magazine was convicted because the judges felt the drawing was slanderous to mr. Forrest as a private person and therefor gave him a moral compensation of 1 euro. I would say that the judgement is incorrect since mr. Forrest actually is one of the people engaged in those fishy mining company activities and therefor the cartoon is not exactly inaccurate, but the legal reasoning behind it is sound and I'm willing to bet a similar reasoning (slandering private persons is not allowed) could be upheld in US courts if the facts actually meritted it.
edit: esa ironically that is exactly how the article is interpreted, the article in question doesn't apply to eg radio or television, but this is a constitutional protection that has always been drafted for printed material, there are other protections so this does not exactly put everyone else in a legal void when it comes to expressing opinions
even if you make it from wood. (how do you say coal from wood in english btw?) But without the humour I see your point"