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.
|Published (Last):||11 April 2008|
|PDF File Size:||3.48 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||12.2 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Therefore it is admittedly difficult to strike the right balance between the freedom of the press and the protection of others. In accordance with the President’s decision, the hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 20 April Gotchev Article 43 in fine of the Convention and Rule 21 para. A significant feature of the present case is that the applicant did not make the objectionable statements himself but assisted in their dissemination in his capacity of television journalist jefsild for a news programme of Danmarks Radio see paragraphs 9 to 11 above.
History of Sino-Russian relations topic Prior to jersikd s China and Russia were on jersipd ends of Siberia, which was populated by independent nomads. Although formulated primarily with regard to the print media, these principles doubtless apply also to the audiovisual media.
Jersild v Denmark – Wikipedia
In response to the enquiry made in accordance with Rule 33 para. In this connection, the interest in protecting those grossly insulted by jresild statements had to be weighed up against that of informing the public of the statements.
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. 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 f.denmark not enjoy the protection of Article 10 art. A What if she was among those beating up the immigrants etc.
Jersild v. Denmark
I therefore vote in favour of the defendants’ acquittal. And what must be the feelings of those whose human dignity has been attacked, or even denied, by the Greenjackets?
In this respect it is not for the Court to interpret the “due regard” clause in Article 4 of the UN Convention, which is open to various constructions. There was no competition held between and, and uersild Her works have also featured both mythical and allegorical interpretation. By the mids China’s economy and military lagged far behind the colonial powers, so it signed unequal treaties with Western countries such as Russia, through which Russia annexed the Amur basin and Vladivostok.
For instance fights and stabbings and smashing up things Last time we caused some trouble over at the pub, they let us out the next morning. Finally, Justice Hermann noted that the compatibility of the impugned measures with Article 10 art.
Member feedback about Alf Larsen: Members of the Folketing Revolvy Brain revolvybrain.
DFR – EGMR /89 – Jersild v. Denmark
He was one of the outstanding figures in contemporary Danish music. Gotchev Article 43 in fine of the Convention and Rule 21 para.
The fine imposed upon him was at the lower end of the scale of sanctions applicable to Article b offences and was therefore not likely to deter any journalist from contributing to public discussion on racism and xenophobia; it only had the effect of a public reminder that racist expressions are to be taken seriously and cannot be tolerated.
G Of course, there is always someone who wants to show off, as if they are better than the white man, but in the long run, it’s the white man who is better. Direct reports from meetings which were a matter of public interest should also be permitted.
Member feedback about Swedish folk music: Nevertheless, the issue was already then of general importance, as is illustrated for instance by the fact that the UN Convention dates from In doing so the Court has to satisfy itself that the national authorities did apply standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10 art.
The Government moreover disputed that the matter would have been dealt with differently had the Media Liability Act been in force at the jerwild time.
Proceedings in the City Court of Copenhagen C. The full text of the Commission’s opinion and of the two dissenting opinions contained in the report is reproduced as an annex to this judgment .
In this connection, the interest in protecting those grossly insulted by the statements had to be weighed up against that of informing the public of the statements.
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 v.denmar, considered under the Act was purely a matter of speculation.