![]() The context, namely, recent public discussion and press comments on racism in Denmark, had to been taken into account. The interview did not explicitly recall the immorality, dangers and unlawfulness of the promotion of racial hatred and of ideas of superiority of one race. The purpose of the interview was to identify certain racist individuals and portray and explain their mentality and social background, it did not serve for the propagation of racist views and ideas. However, the Danish courts had not struck the right balance between journalistic freedom and the legitimate aim: States are obliged to take effective measures to eliminate all forms of racial discrimination and to prevent racist practices. Jersild was prescribed by the Danish law and it pursued a legitimate aim - protection of the reputation or rights of others. The Court ruled that the interference with the freedom of expression of Mr. Jersild was not necessary to protect the reputation or rights of others and thus had violated his freedom of expression. The Court ruled that the punishment of Mr.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |