english
nederlands
Indymedia NL
Vrij Media Centrum Nederland
Indymedia NL is een onafhankelijk lokaal en mondiaal vrij communicatie orgaan. Indymedia biedt een andere kijk op het nieuws door een open publicatie methode van tekst, beeld & geluid.
> contact > zoek > archief > hulp > doe mee > publiceer nieuws > open nieuwslijn > disclaimer > chat
Zoek

 
Alle Woorden
Elk Woord
Bevat Media:
Alleen beelden
Alleen video
Alleen audio

Dossiers
Agenda
CHAT!
LINKS

European NewsReal

MDI klaagt Indymedia.nl aan
Rechtszaak Deutsche Bahn tegen Indymedia.nl
Onderwerpen
anti-fascisme / racisme
europa
feminisme
gentechnologie
globalisering
kunst, cultuur en muziek
media
militarisme
natuur, dier en mens
oranje
vrijheid, repressie & mensenrechten
wereldcrisis
wonen/kraken
zonder rubriek
Events
G8
Oaxaca
Schinveld
Schoonmakers-Campagne
Hulp
Hulp en tips voor beginners
Een korte inleiding over Indymedia NL
De spelregels van Indymedia NL
Hoe mee te doen?
Doneer
Steun Indymedia NL financieel!
Rechtszaken kosten veel geld, we kunnen elke (euro)cent gebruiken!

Je kunt ook geld overmaken naar bankrekening 94.32.153 tnv Stichting Vrienden van Indymedia (IBAN: NL41 PSTB 0009 4321 53).
Indymedia Netwerk

www.indymedia.org

Projects
print
radio
satellite tv
video

Africa
ambazonia
canarias
estrecho / madiaq
kenya
nigeria
south africa

Canada
hamilton
london, ontario
maritimes
montreal
ontario
ottawa
quebec
thunder bay
vancouver
victoria
windsor
winnipeg

East Asia
burma
jakarta
japan
manila
qc

Europe
alacant
andorra
antwerpen
armenia
athens
austria
barcelona
belarus
belgium
belgrade
bristol
bulgaria
croatia
cyprus
estrecho / madiaq
euskal herria
galiza
germany
grenoble
hungary
ireland
istanbul
italy
la plana
liege
lille
madrid
malta
marseille
nantes
netherlands
nice
norway
oost-vlaanderen
paris/île-de-france
poland
portugal
romania
russia
scotland
sverige
switzerland
thessaloniki
toulouse
ukraine
united kingdom
valencia
west vlaanderen

Latin America
argentina
bolivia
brasil
chiapas
chile
chile sur
colombia
ecuador
mexico
peru
puerto rico
qollasuyu
rosario
santiago
tijuana
uruguay
valparaiso

Oceania
adelaide
aotearoa
brisbane
burma
darwin
jakarta
manila
melbourne
oceania
perth
qc
sydney

South Asia
india
mumbai

United States
arizona
arkansas
atlanta
austin
baltimore
big muddy
binghamton
boston
buffalo
charlottesville
chicago
cleveland
colorado
columbus
danbury, ct
dc
hampton roads, va
hawaii
houston
hudson mohawk
idaho
ithaca
kansas city
la
madison
maine
miami
michigan
milwaukee
minneapolis/st. paul
new hampshire
new jersey
new mexico
new orleans
north carolina
north texas
nyc
oklahoma
omaha
philadelphia
pittsburgh
portland
richmond
rochester
rogue valley
saint louis
san diego
san francisco
san francisco bay area
santa barbara
santa cruz, ca
seattle
tallahassee-red hills
tampa bay
tennessee
united states
urbana-champaign
utah
vermont
western mass
worcester

West Asia
armenia
beirut
israel
palestine

Topics
biotech

Process
discussion
fbi/legal updates
indymedia faq
mailing lists
process & imc docs
tech
volunteer
Credits
Deze site is geproduceerd door vrijwilligers met free software waar mogelijk.

De software die we gebruiken is beschikbaar op: mir.indymedia.de
een alternatief is te vinden op: active.org.au/doc

Dank aan indymedia.de en mir-coders voor het creëren en delen van mir!

Contact:
info @ indymedia.nl
Netherlands: Court condemns removal of texts
jeremy - 24.11.2005 23:46

The district court of Amsterdam pronounced its ruling today in the lawsuit brought by activists who had had banners and posters removed by force: their rights were violated.

(This report is a follow-up to  http://www.indymedia.nl/nl/2005/11/32422.shtml , posted separately.)

The text of the court ruling in Dutch is available at  http://zoeken.rechtspraak.nl/zoeken/dtluitspraak.asp?searchtype=ljn&ljn=AU6828&u_ljn=AU6828 .

As expected, the court did not issue a ruling about the texts of the banners, since both parties had agreed that there was no immediate danger of them being forcibly removed. (paragraph 5)

The court did, however, give a detailed assessment of the text of the poster ("Travel Agency Rita; arrest, deportation, cremation; adequate to the bitter end"), whose "defamatory" nature was disputed by both parties.

The removal of the poster was without a doubt a violation of article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, protecting the freedom of expression. Paragraph 2 of article 10 lists the reasons that can be given to justify such a violation (7)

One of those reasons is the prevention of crimes. Since the Dutch state acted to prevent specific crimes, namely libel, slander or insult, this was a valid reason (8,9)

But the most important question that the ECHR asks is: was the violation necessary in a democratic society? At this point the court issues a surprisingly scathing indictment of the treatment that the detainees in the prison fire endured at the hands of the Dutch state. This treatment, says the court, is the cause of the ensuing societal unrest. (10)

The court fails to understand why you should only be allowed to criticize the government and its policy and not the ministers who are responsible for it. A politically responsible person has to be able to put up with greater criticism than an ordinary citizen. The poster, with its use of the minister's own word "adequate" and (implicit) reference to a concentration camp, was clearly aimed to shock. Even speech that shocks and disturbs is covered by the freedom of speech, ESPECIALLY in a heated public debate such as this one. (11)

Nevertheless, the office of public prosecutions is free to prosecute a case of defamation, even if this case will probably not lead to a conviction. In a case such as this one, where the opinions are so divided, it is especially important that the office of public prosecutions not simply confiscate the poster, but bring the matter before a criminal court as expeditiously as possible. One suspect [in Nijmegen] is already being prosecuted, why not [plaintiff #3 in this case]? He already turned himself in and admitted to it. If he hangs up the poster again, then that can be taken into account during his criminal trial-- it is unnecessary to remove the poster again. (12)

It is therefore UNNECESSARY IN A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY to remove the poster, and the State is forbidden from doing so again until the criminal court has had its say. (13)

ANALYSIS:
Although there was some initial disappointment on the part of activists that the court did not try to pin the State down on what the change of circumstances would have to be before it would try to remove the banners again, it should be clear from the Amsterdam district court's assessment that that the State and the mayor have very little wiggle room. The State and the mayor seemed to imply that if the debate surrounding Rita Verdonk got any more heated, then it would justify cracking down on speech once more.

The court refuted this in paragraph 11: it said that this type of speech is all the more necessary and protected in the context of a heated debate. If anything, the debate would have to cool down or become irrelevant before the State or the mayor could try to get away with another crackdown.

It is also relevant that the court did not give the State carte blanche to decide what sort of crimes it intends to prevent by violating freedom of expression. The State seemed to imply that paragraph 2 of article 10 of the ECHR allowed it to violate freedom of speech to prevent any crimes that might ensue from the speech (rioting? murder? shoplifting? bicycling at night without a taillight?), but the court restricted the prevention of crimes to the suspected offenses at hand: libel, slander, or insult.




- E-Mail: jeremy@squat.net
 

Lees meer over: vrijheid, repressie & mensenrechten

aanvullingen
uit dit artikel zijn aanvullingen verwijderd, zie spelregels
> indymedia.nl > zoek > archief > hulp > doe mee > publiceer nieuws > open nieuwslijn > disclaimer > chat
DISCLAIMER: Indymedia NL werkt volgens een 'open posting' principe om zodoende de vrijheid van meningsuiting te bevorderen. De berichten (tekst, beelden, audio en video) die gepost zijn in de open nieuwslijn van Indymedia NL behoren toe aan de betreffende auteur. De meningen die naar voren komen in deze berichten worden niet zonder meer door de redactie van Indymedia NL gesteund. Ook is het niet altijd mogelijk voor Indymedia NL om de waarheid van de berichten te garanderen.