Text 21091, 62 rader
Skriven 2006-01-05 11:18:00 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
  Kommentar till text 21065 av Dale Shipp (1:261/1466.0)
Ärende: Editor's censorship
===========================
 >>   So you have established that you believe he is in violation
 >> of Dutch law.  OK.

 MVDV>> No, not ok. Just the opposite. Björn is not a citizen of
 MVDV>> The Netherlands and he does not reside in The Netherlands.
 MVDV>> We are not so arrogant as to declare our laws to cover all
 MVDV>> of the world. Björn is not subject to Dutch law and so he
 MVDV>> can not violate it.

 >   Then let me restate the implication of what you said:
 >   You have established that what Björn is doing would be in
 > violation of Dutch law if done in the Netherlands.

But he doesn't. The rest is hypothetical.

 >   It is also true that what he is doing would be in violation
 > of US law if done in America.  Some might say that since he is
 > making his web site and files available for download in the US,
 > then he is in fact in violation of US law.

Luckily only a few take that position as otherwise we might as well close down
the InterNet. There are so many countries with so many laws, that one can
hardly avoid violating *some* country's law without even knowing it.

 MVDV>> Only in your eyes. As for backpedaling, there is none. From the
 MVDV>> beginnig I  have taken the stance that there is no evidence Björn has
 MVDV>> broken swedish law and I still say so. As for bias, I give
 MVDV>> everyone the benefit of the doubt until he/she forfeits it.
 MVDV>> No bias there.

 >   The evidence was posted here, by posting of the Swedish law
 > which could be read by all.

And as has been explained to you by others, you can't just translate a law in a
foreign language and draw conclusions from it.

 > I'll grant that the test of a law is what a judge says when a
 > specific case is brought before her, not what laymen might say.

Exactly!

 >>> What evidence have you seen which demonstrates that what Björn is
 >>> doing is not in violation of Swedish law?

 MVDV>>> How about that Swedish law firm that claimed to represent
 MVDV>>> Playboy? Put on the trail by some snitch. They intimidated
 MVDV>>> Björn but backed off when challenged with the question:
 MVDV>>> "what Swedish law has been broken?" Does that not tell you
 MVDV>>> tell there was no case?

 >    It tells me that the Swedish law firm decided that there
 > was no case worth pursuing.  It does not say that Björn is not
 > in violation of Swedish law.

But it is a strong indication. Why would the sharks back off if they had an
answer to the question "what Swedish law was broken"?


Cheers, Michiel

---
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)