In support of the latter position, the Amici Curiae cited the decision in Miami Herald Publishing Co. Ltd vs. Turnillo 418 US 241 (1974) where it was held that editorial content and judgment is the choice of a newspaper and it had not been demonstrated in that case that governmental regulation in that regard is consistent with inter alia, the guarantee to a free press. Further, that the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and Opinion stated that if a right of reply should exist, it should ideally be part of the industry’s self-regulation and in any case, it should only be feasible when applied to facts and not to opinions. That the same position was taken by the Europe Committee of Ministers in its Resolution 74(2)) of 2nd July, 1974 while Slovakia amended its law to limit the right of reply regarding comments made about public officials in their individual capacities only. d) Disclosure of sources under Article 20 of the Press Law The Amici Curiae submitted that the requirements that journalists should disclose the identities of their confidential sources that have provided information relating to offences against state security, public order, state defence secrets, moral and physical integrity of one or more persons, is an affront to democracy. Reliance in buttressing the above submission was placed on the decision in Goodwin vs. UK (1996) 22 EHRR123 and the Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. vs. National Post 2010 SCC 16. e) Fines and Penalties in Articles 56-64 and 66-69: The submissions on this point were that fine-related Articles in the Press Law are contrary to freedom of expression and freedom of the Reference No. 5 of 2013 Page 24