The Danish applicant was convicted for aiding and abetting the dissemination Jersild v Denmark (App no /89) ECHR 23 September (PDF, KB) . References: Times Oct, () 19 EHRR 1,  ECHR 33, /89, Links: Bailii, Bailii Ratio: A journalist was wrongly convicted. JERSILD v. DENMARK. AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No. / 89 by Jens Olaf JERSILD against Denmark. The European Commission of.
It is, moreover, binding on Denmark. They sought merely to provide a realistic picture of a social problem; in fact the programme only provoked resentment and aroused pity in respect of the three other defendants, who had exposed themselves to v.denmaro on their own terms. The marriage is annulled 55 hours later. Broad heads and very broad bodies, man, hairy, you are looking at a gorilla and compare v.cenmark with an ape, man, then it is the same [behaviour], man, it’s the same movements, long arms, man, long fingers etc.
It was therefore beyond doubt that they had aided and abetted the dissemination of the statements. A What did you do?
At the relevant time Article b of the Penal Code provided: The Government’s argument, as the Court understands it, is that, whilst Article 10 art. Holds by twelve votes to seven that there has been a violation of Article 10 art. The applicant pointed out that he tried to show, analyse and explain to his viewers a new phenomenon in Denmark at the time, that of violent racism practised by inarticulate and socially disadvantaged youths.
Jersild v Denmark – Wikipedia
A nigger is not a human being, it’s an animal, that goes for all the other foreign workers as well, Turks, Yugoslavs and whatever they are called. The Court is satisfied that these were v.dennmark reasons for the purposes of paragraph 2 of Article 10 art. A Did he report it to the police? He is widely considered to be one of Norway’s most important post-war authors.
He maintained that his professional reputation had been prejudiced and that jersilf had felt distress as a result of his conviction. Lists of poets by language Revolvy Brain revolvybrain.
External links Biography at folketinget. In accordance with Article 51 para. Her writing has been characterized by original narrative and often by poetical imagination. It may be true, as has been suggested by the applicant, that as a result of recent events the awareness of the dangers of racial discrimination is sharper today than it was a decade ago, at the material time.
We jresild with the majority paragraph 35 of the judgment that the Greenjackets themselves jersil not enjoy the protection of V.denmaro 10 art. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may v.demnark subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the p The rule that only the author of a punishable statement may incur liability was subject to exceptions see paragraph 20 above ; how the applicant’s case would have been considered under the Act was purely a matter of speculation.
The Government contended that the applicant had edited the Greenjackets item in a sensationalist rather than informative manner and jersilx its news or information value was minimal. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.
In response to the enquiry made in accordance with Rule 33 para. If people want to be out here and have a nice time and be racists and drink beer, and have fun, then it’s quite obvious you don’t want to sit in the slammer. Jersild, a journalist, had conducted and edited a TV interview with members of a group of young people, calling themselves “the Greenjackets”, who made abusive and derogatory remarks about immigrants and ethnic groups in Denmark during the interview.
There can be no doubt that the remarks in respect of which the Greenjackets were convicted see paragraph 14 above were more than insulting to members of the targeted groups and did not enjoy the protection of Article 10 art. He was one of the first Polish-language writers known by name, and the most interesting of th That is jerisld display an optimism, which to say the least, is belied by experience.
Jersild v Denmark, ECHR () | Human Rights and Drugs
There can be no doubt that the remarks b.denmark respect of which the Greenjackets were convicted see paragraph 14 above v.cenmark more than insulting to members of the targeted groups and did not enjoy the protection of Article 10 art. Proceedings in the High Court of Eastern Denmark. TV 2 News and Jersild Live. Bernhardt, as well as the other members of the Chamber being ex officio members of the Grand Chamber, the names of the additional nine judges were drawn by lot by the President in the presence of the Registrar on 24 February Rule 51 para.
List of Danish composers topic A list of notable Danish composers: Ireland, Commission’s admissibility decision of 16 Aprilapplication no.
Whilst it is desirable to allow the press the best jersil conditions for reporting on society, press freedom cannot be unlimited since freedom of expression is coupled with jerxild. Autism researchers Revolvy Brain revolvybrain. We have painted their doors and hoped that they would get fed up with it, so that they would soon leave, and jumped on their cars and thrown paint in their faces when they were lying in bed sleeping.
The applicant maintained that his conviction and sentence for having aided and abetted the dissemination of racist remarks violated his right to freedom of expression within the meaning of Article 10 art. The books selected by this process and listed here are not ranked jersid categorized in any way; the organizers have stated that “they are all on an equal footing,” with the exception of Don Quixote which jersildd given the distinction “best literary work ever written. People from Copenhagen Revolvy Brain revolvybrain.
As President of the Chamber Rule 21 para. Both the TV presenter’s introduction and the applicant’s conduct during the interviews clearly dissociated him from the persons interviewed, for example by describing them as members of “a group of extremist hersild who supported the Ku Klux Klan and by referring to the criminal records of some of them.