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 creŽren en delen van mir!

Contact:
info @ indymedia.nl
Karin Spaink verslaat Scientology
Barb - 05.09.2003 11:07

Een belangrijke uitspraak / jurisprudentie over de vrijheid van meningsuiting op het internet.

De rechter heeft uitspraak gedaan, de uitspraak van 1999 is verworpen, vanaf heden moet het onmiskenbaar duidelijk zijn dat er van onrechtmatigheid sprake is bij publicaties op het internet;

 http://www.netkwesties.nl/editie68/artikel1.php

Indymedia wordt er ook nog in genoemd; Karin Spaink betreurt het dat de uitspraak in de Scientology-zaak van 1999 vier jaar lang de rechtspraak aangaande internet in Nederland mede kon bepalen: "Neem een zaak als het hyperlinken door Indymedia naar publicatie van Radikal over Deutsche Bahn. Dat is echt een beschamend vonnis."


 

Lees meer over: vrijheid, repressie & mensenrechten

aanvullingen
Zie: Deutsche Bahn vs. Indymedia 
M02 - 05.09.2003 14:39


Waar is het internet zonder links?
 http://www.indymedia.nl/nl/static/DB
Netkwesties: editie 68 
link - 05.09.2003 14:54



Website: http://www.netkwesties.nl/editie68
 
Zie ook 
dpi - 05.09.2003 15:28

Internet activisme en de wet
Versie 1.0 - 8 juli 2003
 http://www.bof.nl/activisme.html

(De uitspraak in kwestie is niet meegenomen in het artikel over internet activisme.)
English translation 
happy dutchie - 11.09.2003 14:03

SPAINK DEFEATS SCIENTOLOGY

Jurisprudence providers over

In a for Dutch concepts unknown sentence, the Court in The Hague placed the freedom of speech of Karin Spaink above the copyright of Scientology. And the provider-liability is mitigated.

The already for years taking lawsuit handled about the publication of summaries and/or quotes of the documents OT2 and OT3. These are property of Scientology and were, according this cult, unlawful made public and quoted. The case began already in 1995 (link 1), with a 'short court' in 1996. Karin Spaink won a part of the cases, after she in 1996 decided to change the originally full publication of the named documents with quotes.

The today - after 9 times postponement - publicated judgment of the Court in The Hague says in summary:

1. The judgement from 1999, in advantage of Karin Spaink but in disadvantage for a number of providers, is dismissed.
2. All demands of Scientology Church are rejected.
3. Scientology gains agreement on the point that her documents were not rightful made public.
4. The freedom of speech stands above the eventual copyright of Scientology.
5. Providers cannot be held responsible for deletion or locking of publications, if they 'in all reasonance' should have been informed about the infringements.

The most surprising from this judgement is that the freedom of speech in this case is more important then the protection of rights by Scientology. Shortly said: you may copy documents for criticism.

Also for providers this is an important judgement. Xs4all mentioned in the newsreport this afternoon: in 1999 the court decided that a provider who 'in all reasonance' can go out of an unrightful publication should act against it. This has since then become a guideline, because of a lack of legal cadre.

In addition to this, hyperlinking to law violating publications was punishable by law, and providers were obligated to pass names and addresses. The judges now reject this court ruling from 1999; a motivation is missing.

"We are very happy with this, because 'in all reasonance' is no rule with which one can work with in practice. In fact we are getting to deal with an e-commerceguideline which gives much more lucidity, namely that it has to be undeniable clear that there is unrightfullness in the case", says Edith Mastenbroek, spokeswoman of Xs4all.

Karin Spaink is saddened by the fact that the court ruling in the Scientology of 1999 has contributed to the jurisdiction regarding internet in the Netherlands for 4 years. "Take a case like the hyperlinking by Indymedia{.nl} to the publication of Radikal about the Deutsche Bahn {German Railways}. That's really a shameless court ruling."

The court didn't write a lot about the responsibility of providers. "Futher, the court decided that the forcing of providers to delete or make inaccesable, in this case the information of Karin Spaink, to be disproportional."

And also: "According to the court, service-providers are only providing the technical facilities to make the possibility of publication of data for others. It doesn't look right to put them on one line with publishers who, which is assumed, make the publications theirselve."

This was already decided, so this isn't the core of the netcase of responsibility. It wasn't about infringements of providers but about the question what to do when one of their customers commited an infringement. The court doesn't say anything about this, since Karin Spaink wasn't in infringement.

"The question about responsibility of providers lies, regarding jurisprudence, again open", according to Mastenbroek.

So happy

Karin Spaink was this evening very happy about the court ruling which was the outcome after 8 years of hard struggle. The struggle started on 6 september 1995 with the seizing on the Xs4all-computers, shortly after followed by the first 'short court', after which in march 1996 a court ruling followed.

"I have to read the exact ruling, but the only which i condemn in this ruling is that the copyright which Scientology claims on the documents is not wholy rejected", says Spaink. On the other side there is also a confirm of the economical interest Scientology has with the copyright.

After a number of considerations the court stated: "The most important brings with it that the [...] terms of "rightfully made public" [...] is not satisfied." The Scientologydocuments are, even after they were lied in examination in a court in the United States it was according to the court not publical. You may then not just quote from it.

However, later on the judges say that the publicizing on internet of the whole documents - first on the pages of Spaink herself, but later also in newsgroups and on a lot sittes - and in the court in America do put some weight in the case.

It's then about the question if informationfreedom isn't of higher importance then copyright.: "Thinkable is that there are special cases in which the keeping of copyright, like violationprohibition, has to dodge for informationfreedom...

And then moest quoting is allowed: "[...] do the quotes from OT II and OT III have to be seen in the context of the whole report and has come out that these quotes, be it in low number, the for her targetted informationproviding about the Scientology-theory and the way it goes at the Scientology-organisation support and make them believable. Stated nor proofed is that she (Spaink) has had commercial intentions."

This all counted after a thoroughly described discusable character of the cult (see here under) gives Spaink the right to criticize with quotes: "According to the courts judgement can in these special environment not be said that a limit on informationfreedom based on the keeping of the copyright is needed."

Attorney of Scientology, Ruprecht Hermans of Nauta Dutilh, didn't want to directly give commentary on this important argument of the court. The profit of the office can reside in an eventual continuation of the case by Scientology at the 'higher court'.

Scourge over Scientology

Is the court almost not giving attention to the responsibility of the providers, it's letting more room for changes for content of criticism: in the net amount of 15 pages of court ruling, there are 3 for the character of the practices of Scientology, and thus reviewing it. At most quotes from a certain German ministre of Familycases, older people, women and youth got rough attention. The court weights the criticism on Scientology to state it's relevant to quote from the documents, and is raising more important then an eventual copyrightlawfull interest. The success:

"From the here under 8.3 stated texts is proofed that Scientology c.s. with their theory and organisation are not afraid to reject democratical values. From the documents follows also that the secret-keeping of OT II and OT III also has the target to use power on the members of the Scientology organisation and to prevent discussion about the theory and practices of the Scientology organisation."

Also see:

Panoussis loses higher appeal from Scientology (15 march 2003) (3)
reports from Karin Spaink (january 2001) (4)
Scientology-camouflagements (15 novembre 2001) (5)
Googlebombing Scientology (6)

Links:
1 ->  http://web.planet.nl/archief/daily/dp222.html
2 ->  http://www.xs4all.nl/nieuws/overzicht/verd1ned.html
3 ->  http://www.netkwesties.nl/editie10/artikel3.html
4 ->  http://www.netkwesties.nl/editie7/column1.html
5 ->  http://www.netkwesties.nl/editie25/artikel5.html
6 ->  http://www.netkwesties.nl/editie32/artikel5.html

[Peter Olsthoorn, 4 septembre 2003]

--

This is a translation of:  http://www.netkwesties.nl/editie68/artikel1.php

--

I'd appreciate if one who understands English and Dutch checks the article for any translation mistakes. I'm sure there are are several (small) mistakes in it...

--

Additional links:
Slashdot about this event:  http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/03/09/08/0230218.shtml?tid=123&tid=99 (English)
Xs4all about the couty ruling:  http://www.xs4all.nl/nieuws/overzicht/scientology3.html (Dutch)
Spaink's website:  http://www.xs4all.nl/~kspaink (Dutch, English)
aanvullingen
> 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.