NationStates Jolt Archive


Paragraph 77

Seathorn
14-02-2006, 22:59
§ 77. Enhver er berettiget til på tryk, i skrift og tale at offentliggøre sine tanker, dog under ansvar for domstolene. Censur og andre forebyggende forholdsregler kan ingensinde påny indføres.

Okay, here's a rough translation:
Everyone is entitled in press, writing and speech to publicly express their thoughts, but they can be held responsible before the courts. Censor and other pre-emptive rules/laws can never again be introduced.

Any other dane is free to come with suggestions for corrections.

Now notice the following aspects:
they can be held responsible before the courts.
Censor ... can never again be introduced.

What does this mean? well, it means there is a nifty law in the criminal law of Denmark which can give a maximum of four months (it's in the 140s in paragraph number) or a fine in case you insult a religion (basically). However, this law cannot be exercised on the press: only the editor (since he agrees to publish it, he can refuse) and the author(s) (since they made it).

So why hasn't this law been exercised?

I believe it's because they've been going about it the wrong way. Instead of targetting the editor and the authors, they targetted the newspaper and the countries. The country is powerless and the newspaper cannot, under any circumstance, be censored, even if the editor and the authors get fined/imprisoned.

Also note the never again. No, we don't want to go back to the middle ages when we didn't have this.


§ 140. Den, der offentlig driver spot med eller forhåner noget her i landet lovligt bestående religionssamfunds troslærdomme eller gudsdyrkelse, straffes med bøde eller fængsel indtil 4 måneder.

roughly translated:
The person, who publicly (something insulting) or insults any legal existing beliefsociety (very rough translation), religion teachings or worship in the country, will be punished with a fine or prison for four months.
Utracia
14-02-2006, 23:04
As if something like that would ever be enforced anyway. Insulting is bad taste but I'm sure not illegal.
Seathorn
14-02-2006, 23:05
As if something like that would ever be enforced anyway. Insulting is bad taste but I'm sure not illegal.

Let me find that law...
Utracia
14-02-2006, 23:10
Let me find that law...

Yeah, yeah. Obviously didn't get enough sleep last night. Let's just stick with the first part. "It will never be enforced." There. I feel better.
Seathorn
14-02-2006, 23:16
Yeah, yeah. Obviously didn't get enough sleep last night. Let's just stick with the first part. "It will never be enforced." There. I feel better.

Maybe it's about time we start to enforce it again. Seems like there is still reason to enforce it.


§ 140. Den, der offentlig driver spot med eller forhåner noget her i landet lovligt bestående religionssamfunds troslærdomme eller gudsdyrkelse, straffes med bøde eller fængsel indtil 4 måneder.

roughly translated:
The person, who publicly (something insulting) or insults any legal existing beliefsociety (very rough translation), religion teachings or worship in the country, will be punished with a fine or prison for four months.


edit: All this said, I kinda like the title, "Paragraph 77"
Utracia
14-02-2006, 23:19
Maybe it's about time we start to enforce it again. Seems like there is still reason to enforce it.

Do they go into any detail of what exactly insulting a religion is? It could be argued as vague. Some people are more sensitive then others.
Seathorn
14-02-2006, 23:22
Do they go into any detail of what exactly insulting a religion is? It could be argued as vague. Some people are more sensitive then others.

I don't think they do, so yeah, it is vague. Basically, it's when you try to make a religion feel ashamed of itself and to make it look bad and give it a bad image. Or that's what I read from it.
The Cat-Tribe
14-02-2006, 23:53
Interesting. So J-P and the cartoonists could be charged with a crime.

Personally, I think it is a silly and offensive law. These things should be left to the marketplace of ideas. No ones religious beliefs should be legally protected from "insult."
Seathorn
15-02-2006, 00:02
Interesting. So J-P and the cartoonists could be charged with a crime.

Personally, I think it is a silly and offensive law. These things should be left to the marketplace of ideas. No ones religious beliefs should be legally protected from "insult."

The editor of J-P could be charged with a crime. He has apologized, therefore, it's unlikely to be a high charge. He'd be trialed of course.

The cartoonists could be charged with a crime too. I doubt many of them would get any charge carried through though, except maybe one or two.

Also, they are not protected. These insults are still going to appear, because you can't censor them. You can try to convince people that it's a bad idea to insult other people, but then leave it at that.

Someone advocating the death of all of a specific religion are more likely to be trialed under this law, as I do believe that's what this law is for.

Well, goodnight.