Pühapäev, 28. november 2010

Kas mujal kah sel moel sõnavabadust piiratakse?

Eelolevas postituses küsis üks anonüümne isik mu käest, et ka mujal on samalaadseid seadusi või on Eesti selles osas tavatu?
Toon siin siis mõnede riikide asjakohastest seadustest näiteid.
Inglisekeesed...aga ehk saate aru. Tõlkima ei jõua hakata.
Mõistagi on tegu paljudel puhkude ajalooliste rudimentidega ja Norras pole ka teada, et seda seadust oleks rakendatud.
Samalaadseid seadusi on ka Ladina Ameerikas, Aafrikas ja Aasias kuid seal on need sageli tõesti riigivõimu meelevalla õigustamiseks toimivad. Eesti kohtupraktika ja suhtluspraktika aga näitavad ilmselt lähajal, kas see seadus, mis Riigikogus vastu võeti on liiast või just asjakohane.
Esimene märk, mida kna seaduse toimimisest kuulsin oli möödund laupäevane Keskpäevatund, kus Rein Kilk avaldas arvamust, et hr. Rahumäe kohta on fotod Äripäevale edastanud meie mõni julgeolekuasutus ja seepeale oli Äripäeva toimetaja saatnud asjakohase täpsustuse sms-ga, et nii see ei ole.
Kilk vabandas seepeale saate ajal. Võimalik, et teatava irooniaga, aga see kuulub asuatav kultuuri esmase õppimise juurde.

Kui nüüd küsida, et miks siis Eestis selline seadus rakendatud on. Üks võimalik vastus on see, et meil siiski puudub mõisliku viisakuse ja austuse piisav praktika avalikus suhtlemises. Küsimus pole ainult hpiakust riigiametnike suhtes...mis on mõnede riikide seaduste peamine kaitseobjekt...küsimus on inimese au ja väärikuse ulatuslik löögi alla panek ajakirjanduses ja sellega tihedalt seotud kommentaariumites.
Kui sõnavabaduse lihtsaim avaldumisvorm Eestis on kahjuks laussõim, on raske näha selle rolli laiemalt kui sõimaja teraapiline rahustamine. Sõimaja võiks end teraapiliselt rahustada ka kammerlikemates oludes kui avalik meedia. Sõnavabadus võiks põhineda kultuuriliselt paremini sidustatud tekstidel.

Kunagi eeldas kirjastaja Hans H Luik, et nii delfi.ee kui kunagi olnud portaal mega.ee kujunevad kollektiivseks ajuks. Võinuks ehk kujunedagi. Kujunesid aga esialgu pigem kollektiiveks pärasooleks...kahjuks. Kõik sotsiaalsed eksperimendid ei lõppe alati loodetud tulemustega.
Kollektiivseks ajuks on kujunenud ehk internet tervikuna, mitte mõned kommunikatsiooniportaalid.

Ma arvan, et Eesti Ajalehtede liit on oma väljapoole suunatud kaebustes targu ära jätnud kokkuvõtted sellest laussõimust, mis saab kommentaariumites osaks tekstides kirjeldatud isikutele või sündmustele.
Ma usun, et selline viha ja põlguse väljaelamine on kultuuriliselt tavatu kogu demokraatlikus maailmas. Aga võimalik, et eksin.
See Eesti seadus loob mõõdukad kultuurilised piirid ja kui vaatate muude riikide samalaadseid seadusi siis küllalt mõistlikul moel.

Meedia aruka eneseregulatsiooni kujunemiseks on aega olnud ju tänaseks piisavalt. Paraku müüb online meedia end jätkuval laussõimuga...v.a. siis Eesti Päevaleht ja Sirp (kus kommenteeriad identifitseeritud või valitud).
Moodsa ja kultuurse ühiskonna osaks ei peaks kindlasti olema sellised seadused. Arenenud kultuuri loomulik osa peaks olema võime pidada samaaegselt mõlemast põhiseaduse punktist: nii sõnavabadusest kui au ja värikuse kaitstust nüudvast punktist.
Kuna seda ei tehta ongi kõnealune seadus vajalik.

Head lugemist siis mõnede Euroopa riikide solvamisvastataste seaduste kohta:

Austria
Laws
Criminal Code, Art. 111: (1) “Anyone who, in such a way that it may be noticed by a
third person, attributes to another a contemptible characteristic or sentiment or accuses him
of behavior contrary to honor or morality such as to make him contemptible or otherwise
lower him in public esteem” may be punished by up to six months imprisonment or a fine.
(2) Committing this offense “in a printed document, by broadcasting or otherwise in such a
way as to make the defamation accessible to a broad section of the public,” punishable by up
to one year imprisonment or a fine. (3) Truth is a defense. “In the case of the offense defined
in paragraph 1, a person shall also not be liable if circumstances are established which gave
him sufficient reason to believe that the statement was true.”
Art. 115: “(1) Anyone who, in public or in the presence of several others, insults,
mocks, mistreats or threatens to mistreat a third person, shall be liable to imprisonment not
exceeding three months or a fine . . . unless he is liable to a more severe penalty under
another provision. . . .
Art. 116: “Anyone who publicly insults or defames public authorities and institutions
shall be punished by up to six months imprisonment or a fine.”
Art. 248: “Anyone who publicly disparages the Austrian State or its national symbols
shall be punished by up to one year imprisonment or a fine.”


Denmark
Laws
Criminal Code, Art. 121: Attacking a public official “with insults, abusive language or
other offensive words or gestures while he is executing his office or function or on occasion
of such office or function,” punishable by a fine, simple detention or up to six months
imprisonment.
Art. 267: (1) Violation of “the personal honor of another by offensive words or
conduct or by making or spreading accusations of an act likely to disparage another in the
esteem of his fellow citizens,” punishable by fine or simple detention. (2) It is an
“aggravating circumstance” if the offense is aimed at “any person vested by public authority
with jurisdiction or the power to make decisions on any matter involving legal consequences
or in enforcing the authority of the Executive in criminal matters in connection with the
execution of his office or function, in circumstances other than those covered by” Art. 121,
and the penalty may be increased to up to six months imprisonment. (3) It is an “aggravating
circumstance” if “the insult was made in a printed document or in any way likely to give it
wider circulation or in such places or at such times as greatly to aggravate the offensive
character of the act.”
Art. 268: “If an allegation has been maliciously made or disseminated, or if the author
had no reasonable ground to regard it as true,” that constitutes defamation, punishable by
simple detention or up to two years imprisonment. “If the allegation has not been made or
disseminated publicly, the punishment may, in mitigating circumstances, be reduced to a
fine.”
Art. 269: “(1) An allegation shall not be punishable if its truth has been established or
if the author of the allegation, in good faith, has been under an obligation to speak or has
acted in justified protection of obvious public interest or of the personal interest of himself or
others. (2) Punishment may be remitted where evidence is produced which justifies the
grounds for regarding the allegation as true.”

Denmark
Laws
Criminal Code, Art. 121: Attacking a public official “with insults, abusive language or
other offensive words or gestures while he is executing his office or function or on occasion
of such office or function,” punishable by a fine, simple detention or up to six months
imprisonment.
Art. 267: (1) Violation of “the personal honor of another by offensive words or
conduct or by making or spreading accusations of an act likely to disparage another in the
esteem of his fellow citizens,” punishable by fine or simple detention. (2) It is an
“aggravating circumstance” if the offense is aimed at “any person vested by public authority
with jurisdiction or the power to make decisions on any matter involving legal consequences
or in enforcing the authority of the Executive in criminal matters in connection with the
execution of his office or function, in circumstances other than those covered by” Art. 121,
and the penalty may be increased to up to six months imprisonment. (3) It is an “aggravating
circumstance” if “the insult was made in a printed document or in any way likely to give it
wider circulation or in such places or at such times as greatly to aggravate the offensive
character of the act.”
Art. 268: “If an allegation has been maliciously made or disseminated, or if the author
had no reasonable ground to regard it as true,” that constitutes defamation, punishable by
simple detention or up to two years imprisonment. “If the allegation has not been made or
disseminated publicly, the punishment may, in mitigating circumstances, be reduced to a
fine.”
Art. 269: “(1) An allegation shall not be punishable if its truth has been established or
if the author of the allegation, in good faith, has been under an obligation to speak or has
acted in justified protection of obvious public interest or of the personal interest of himself or
others. (2) Punishment may be remitted where evidence is produced which justifies the
grounds for regarding the allegation as true.”

Germany
Laws
Criminal Code, Sect. 90: “(1) Whoever publicly, in a meeting or by the distribution of
writings, defames the Federal President shall be punished by three months to five years
imprisonment. (2) In less serious cases, the court, in its discretion, may reduce the
punishment unless the prerequisites of Sect. 187a (see below) have been met. (3) If the crime
amounts to a criminal libel (Sect. 187), or if the perpetrator intended to lend his support to
efforts directed against the existence of the Federal Republic of Germany or its constitutional
principles, the punishment shall be six months to five years. (4) The crime shall be prosecuted
only with the authorization of the Federal President.”
Sect. 90a: “(1) Whoever publicly, in a meeting or by the distribution of writings: 1)
insults or maliciously maligns the Federal Republic of Germany or one of its Länder (states)
or its constitutional order or 2) defames the colors, the flag, the coat of arms or the anthem of
the Federal Republic of Germany or one of its Länder shall be punished by up to three years
imprisonment or a fine. . . . (3) If the perpetrator intended to lend his support to efforts
directed against the existence of the Federal Republic of Germany or its constitutional
principles, the punishment shall be up to five years imprisonment or a fine.”
Sect. 90b: “(1) Whoever publicly, in a meeting or by the distribution of writings,
defames a legislative body, the government, or the constitutional court of the Federation or
of a Länder, or one of their members in the exercise of his official duties in a manner
endangering respect for the State, and who thereby intentionally lends his support to efforts
directed against the existence of the Federal Republic of Germany or its constitutional
principles, shall be punished by three to five years imprisonment. (2) The crime shall be
prosecuted only with the authorization of the constitutional body or member involved.”
Sect. 103: “(1) Whoever insults a foreign head of state, or whoever insults, with
respect to the victim’s position, a member of a foreign government present in his official
capacity in the Federal Republic of Germany, or the head, accredited to the federal territory,
of a foreign diplomatic mission, shall be punished by up to three years imprisonment or by
a fine, and in cases involving defamatory insults, by imprisonment from three months to five
years. (2) If the offense is committed publicly, in a meeting or by the distribution of writings,”
the offended party or the public prosecutor can order publication of the conviction.
Sect. 104: “Whoever . . . commits an insulting act with respect to the flag of a foreign
state, publicly displayed according to law or recognized usage, or to a symbol of sovereignty
of such a state shall be punished by up to two years imprisonment or a fine.”
Germany
Press freedom rating: Free
Germany has a population of
82 million; it is a federal republic
with a parliamentary democracy.
In 1990 the Federal Republic of
Germany and the German
Democratic Republic reunited.
28
Sect. 166: “(1) Whoever, publicly or by the distribution of writings maligns the
content of a religious or ideological faith in a manner likely to disturb the public peace, shall
be punished by up to three years imprisonment or by fine. (2) Similar punishment shall be
imposed on anyone who, publicly or by the distribution of writings, maligns a church or
other religious society or ideological association existing in Germany, its institutions, or its
customs, in a manner likely to disturb the public peace.”
Sect. 185: “An insult shall be punished by up to one year imprisonment or a fine.”
Sect. 186: “Malicious gossip, . . . a statement of a factual nature about another, likely
to cause the other person to be held in contempt or to suffer a loss of public esteem . . . [and]
not demonstrably true” is punishable by up to two years imprisonment or fine, “and if the
offense is committed in public or by the distribution of writings, by up to two years
imprisonment and a fine.”
Sect. 187: “Whoever, with full knowledge of the facts, makes or disseminates an
untrue statement of a factual nature about another, likely to cause the other person to be held
in contempt, to suffer a loss in public esteem, or to endanger his credit reputation shall be
punished by up to two years imprisonment and, if the offense is committed in public or by
the distribution of writings, by up to five years imprisonment or a fine.”
Sect. 187a: “Whoever publicly, in a meeting or by the distribution of writings,
commits the offense of malicious gossip against a person active in the political life of the
nation from motives related to the victim’s position in public life, and if the offense is likely
to significantly reduce his effectiveness as a politician, shall be punished by three months to
five years imprisonment. (2) A criminal defamation shall be punished, provided the same
prerequisites are met, by imprisonment for six months to five years.”
Sect. 189: “Whoever blackens the memory of the dead shall be punished by up to two
years imprisonment or by fine.”
Sect. 192: Truth is not a defense to insult “if the insult results from the form of the
statement or dissemination, or from the circumstances in which it occurred.”
Sect. 193: “Critical comment on scientific, artistic or commercial productions, as well
as expressions made in the exercise or defense of rights, or in order to protect justifiable
interests, as well as remonstrances and reprimands from superiors to subordinates, official
reports or decisions by a civil servant and similar cases are punishable only to the extent that
an insult arises from the form of the expression or from the circumstances in which it was
made."

Greece
Laws
Criminal Code, Art. 153(b): “One who . . . publicly attacks the honor of the head of a
foreign state which is at peace with the Greek State and is recognized by it shall be punished
by imprisonment unless the offense is subject to greater punishment under other provisions,
provided that reciprocity of punishment is guaranteed and was guaranteed at the time of the
commission of the offense. Prosecution shall commence only at the request of the foreign
government.” There is a six-month statute of limitations, and truth is not a defense.
Art. 154: Publicly attacking the honor of “an accredited ambassador to the Greek State
or other diplomatic representative of a foreign state shall be punished by imprisonment for
not more than two years unless the offense is subject to greater punishment under another
provision of the statute. Prosecution shall commence only on the complaint of the victim or
at the request of his government.”
Art. 168(2): “One who attacks the honor of the President of the Republic or one
exercising the power of the President of the Republic, or defames him publicly or in his
presence, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three months.” There is a sixmonth
statute of limitations on prosecutions.
Art. 361: “(1) Insult. Except in cases which amount to defamation (Arts. 362 and 363),
one who by words or by deeds or by any other means injures another’s reputation” shall be
punished by up to one year imprisonment and/or a fine. “(2) If the injury to reputation is not
severe, considering the circumstances and the person injured, the offender shall be punished
by jailing or fine.”
Art. 361A: “(1) An insult committed through an act (Art. 361(1)) is punished by
imprisonment of at least three months if it was unprovoked by the victim. (2) If two or more
persons participated in the insulting act, it will be punished by imprisonment of at least six
months.”
Art. 362: “Defamation. One who by any means asserts or disseminates information to
a third party concerning another that may damage his character or reputation” shall be
punished by up to two years imprisonment and/or a fine.
Art. 363: “Aggravated defamation. If in a case under Art. 362, the information is false
and the offender was aware of the falsity thereof, he shall be punished by imprisonment for
not less than three months, and, in addition, a fine and deprivation of civil rights may be
imposed.”
Art. 364: “(1) One who by any means asserts or disseminates information concerning
a corporation with respect to its business, financial condition, product or members of its
Greece
Press freedom rating: Free
Greece is a presidential
parliamentary republic with a
population of 10.7 million.
30
board of directors that may lower the confidence of the public in the corporation and
generally injure its business shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than one year
or a fine. (2) If the accused proves the truth of the information that he asserted or
disseminated, he shall not be punished. (3) If the information that the accused asserted or
disseminated is false and he was aware of the falsity thereof, he shall be punished by
imprisonment.”
Art. 365: “One who disparages the memory of a decedent by rude or malicious insult
or by aggravated defamation (Art. 363) shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than
six months.”
Art. 366: “(1) If the information described under Art. 362 is true, the act shall not be
punished, but proof of truth shall not be admitted if the information concerns solely family
or personal relationships that do not affect the public interest and if the assertion or
dissemination was done maliciously. (2) In cases under Arts. 362, 363, 364 and 365, if the
information that the accused asserted or disseminated discloses a criminal act that is
prosecuted, the defamation trial shall be suspended until the termination of such
prosecution, and subsequently the truth of the information shall be deemed proved by a
conviction and its falsity by an acquittal based upon failure of proof of commission of such
criminal act by the person defamed. Proof of truth of defaming information shall not
preclude punishment for insult, provided that intent to insult is apparent from the conduct
or circumstances under which it occurred.”
Art. 367: “(1) Disapproving criticisms of scientific, artistic or occupational
developments, or such criticisms that appear in a public document issued by an authority
concerning the activities of such authority, or such criticisms for the purpose of fulfilling
lawful duties, the exercise of lawful authority or protecting a right or some other justified
interest, or such criticisms in similar cases shall not constitute an unjustified act. (2) This
provision shall not apply when the above criticisms constitute the essential elements of an
offense under Art. 363 or intent to insult is apparent from the manner of criticism or the
circumstances under which it occurred.”
Art. 368: “(1) In cases under Arts. 361, 362, 363, 364 and 365, criminal prosecution
shall be initiated only upon a complaint. (2) In a case under Art. 365, the right to file a
complaint lies with the surviving husband, wife and children of the decedent and, if such do
not exist, the parents, brothers and sisters of the decedent. In a case under Art. 364, the right
to file a complaint lies with the board of directors and any person with a legal interest in the
matter. (3) If the injured person is a civil servant and the offense occurred during his tenure
in office or for reasons related to such tenure, his official superior and the competent minister
shall also have the right to file a complaint.”
Art. 369: Requires publications of judgments in favor of complainants in insult and
defamation cases. If a newspaper or periodical found guilty of insult or defamation fails to
publish the judgment in accordance with the law, the editor can be punished by up to one
year imprisonment or a fine.

Italy
Laws
1930 Criminal Code (amended 1944, 1947, 1955), Art. 278: “Offenses to the honor and
the prestige of the President of the Republic. Whoever offends the honor or the prestige of
the President of the Republic shall be punished with imprisonment from one to five years.”
The 1929 Concordat with the Vatican extends that same protection to the Pope.
Art. 290: “Offenses to the honor of the Republic, the constitutional institutions and
the Armed Forces. Whoever publicly insults the Republic, one or both of the legislative
assemblies, the government, the Constitutional Court or the magistrature shall be punished
with imprisonment for six months to three years. The same sanctions are applied to whoever
publicly offends the Armed Forces or the forces of liberation.”
Art. 291: “Offenses to the honor of the Italian nation. Whoever publicly slanders the
Italian nation shall be punished with imprisonment from one to three years.”
Art. 292: “Offenses to the flag or other State emblems. Whoever insults the national
flag or another emblem of the State shall be punished with imprisonment from one to three
years.”
Art. 297: “Offenses to the honor of a foreign head of state,” punishable by one to three
years imprisonment.
Art. 298: “Offenses against the representatives of foreign states,” punishable by one
to three years imprisonment.
Art. 299: “Offenses against the flag or emblem of a foreign state,” punishable by six
months to three years imprisonment.
The last three articles apply only in those cases in which a foreign state’s law provides
reciprocal protections to Italian officials and symbols.

The Netherlands
Laws
Criminal Code, Art. 111: “Intentional insult of the King,” punishable by up to five
years imprisonment or a fine.
Art. 112: “Intentional insult of the King’s consort, the Heir Apparent or the spouse of
the latter, or of the Regent,” punishable by up to four years in prison or a fine.
Art. 113: (1) “A person who disseminates, publicly displays or posts, or has in stock
to be disseminated, publicly displayed or posted, written matter or an image containing an
insult of the King, the King’s consort, the Heir Apparent or the spouse of the latter, or of the
Regent” may be punished by up to one year imprisonment or a fine, “where he knows or has
serious reason to suspect the written matter or the image to contain such an insult.” (2) The
punishment in (1) also applies “to a person who, with like knowledge or reason to suspect,
publicly utters the contents of such written matter.” (3) “Where the offender commits any of
the serious offenses defined in this article in the practice of his profession and where, at the
time the serious offense is committed, less than two years have passed since a previous
conviction of the offender for any of these serious offenses became final, he may be
disqualified from the practice of that profession.”
Art. 118: “Intentional insult of a head or a member of government of a friendly nation,
present in the Netherlands in his official capacity” or of a “representative of a friendly nation
accredited to the Netherlands government,” punishable by up to two years imprisonment or
fine.
Art. 119: (1) “A person who disseminates, publicly displays or posts written matter or
an image containing insult of a head or a member of government of a friendly nation, present
in the Netherlands in his official capacity or who publicly utters the contents of such written
matter” may be punished by up to six months in prison or a fine, “where he knows or has
serious reason to suspect the written matter or the image to contain such an insult.” (2) The
same penalties apply to insult of “a representative of a friendly nation accredited to the
Netherlands government. (3) Where the offender commits any of the serious offenses defined
in this article in the practice of his profession and where, at the time the serious offense is
committed, less than two years have passed since a previous conviction of the offender for
any of these serious offenses became final, he may be disqualified from the practice of that
profession.”
Arts. 261: (1) Slander, defined as intentionally impugning “the honor or reputation of
another person, by alleging he committed a particular act, with the clear intent of giving
publicity to the allegation,” punishable by up to six months imprisonment or a fine. (2) Libel,
The Netherlands
Press freedom rating: Free
The Netherlands is a
parlia-mentary democracy under
a constitutional monarch, with a
population of 15.8 million.
36
defined as impugning a person’s honor or reputation “by means of written material or
images, which are either disseminated, publicly displayed or posted, or by means of written
material the contents of which are publicly uttered,” punishable by up to one year
imprisonment or a fine. (3) It does not constitute slander or libel if “the perpetrator has acted
in his own necessary defense or where, in good faith, he might have assumed the allegation
to be true and to be required in the public interest.”
Art. 262: A person who commits slander or libel “knowing that the allegation is
contrary to the truth is guilty of aggravated defamation,” punishable by up to two years
imprisonment and a fine.
Art. 265: (1) “Where the person defamed is found guilty in a final judgment of the
allegation imputed to him, conviction for aggravated defamation is precluded. (2) Where the
person defamed has been acquitted of the allegation in a final judgment, that judgment is
considered full proof of the falsity of the allegation. (3) Where criminal proceedings for the
allegation have been instituted against the person defamed, prosecution for aggravated
defamation shall be suspended until there is a final judgment with respect to the allegation.”
Art. 266: “Simple defamation,” defined as an “intentional act of defamation that
cannot be characterized as slander or libel, committed in public either orally or in writing or
by image, or orally against a person in his presence or through other acts, or committed by
means of written matter or an image sent or offered,” punishable by up to three months
imprisonment or a fine. (2) “Acts intended to express an opinion about the defense of public
interests, and not at the same time designed to cause worse offense in any other way than
might be assumed from their purpose, are not punishable as simple defamation.”
Art. 267: The punishments provided in Arts. 261-266 “may be increased by one-third
where the defamation is made with regard to: (1) the public authorities, a public body or a
public institution; (2) a public servant during or in connection with the lawful execution of
his duties; (3) the head or a member of the government of a friendly nation.”
Art. 270: Slander or libel of a dead person is punishable by up to three months
imprisonment or a fine.

Norway
Laws
Criminal Code, Art. 95: “Any person who in the realm publicly insults the flag or
national coat of arms of a foreign state, or is an accessory thereto,” may be punished by a fine
or up to one year imprisonment. “The same penalty shall apply to any person who in the
realm offends a foreign state by committing violence against or by threatening or offensive
behavior toward any representative of that state.”
Art. 101: “Any person who defames the King or the Regent” may be punished by up
to five years imprisonment.
Art. 130: Defamation of public authorities, punishable by a fine or up to one year
imprisonment.


Sweden
Laws
Sweden repealed its laws prohibiting insulting government officials and national
symbols in the 1960s and 1970s. In 1965, provisions making it a crime to insult the Riksdag
(Parliament) and foreign heads of state and diplomats were repealed. In 1971, laws
prohibiting desecrating the national symbols of Sweden or foreign nations were abolished.
In 1976, the laws prohibiting insult of the King and public officials were repealed. Sweden’s
Freedom of the Press Act, however, does contain provisions regarding libel and affront or
insult, in general.
Freedom of the Press Act, Chapt. 7, Art. 4: “With due regard to the purpose of a
universal freedom of the press as set forth in Chapter 1, the following acts shall be regarded
as offenses against the freedom of the press if they are committed by way of printed matter
and if they are punishable under law: . . . 14. defamation, whereby a person alleges another
is a criminal or is blameworthy in his way of life, or otherwise communicates information
liable to expose the other to the contempt of others, and, if the person libeled is deceased, to
cause offense to his survivors or which might otherwise be considered to violate the sanctity
of the grave, except, however, in cases in which it was justifiable having regard to the
circumstances, or in order to provide information in the matter concerned and proof is
presented that the information was correct or that there were reasonable grounds for it; and
15. affront, whereby a person insults another by means of offensive invective or allegations
or by any other insulting behavior towards him.”
Art. 7: “Printed matter containing an offense against the freedom of the press may be
confiscated.”
Chapt. 9 authorizes criminal prosecution by the Justice Chancellor of offenses under
the Freedom of the Press Act, and Chapt. 11 authorizes private claims for damages

9 kommentaari:

Anonüümne nr. 2 ütles ...

Marek,

1) viita palun ingliskeelse teksti algallikale ka

2) kas Sinu arust Eesti peaks sarnanema rohkem Rootsile või rohkem Kreekale/Saksamaale? Miks?

Margus Raha ütles ...

Marek,
Olen lugenud laus-sõimu ja ka ropendamist Youtube-kommentaariumis. Toimetan ise ühte reisifoorumit Eestis ja sellise isikuvastased rünnakud lähevad kohe kustutamisele.

Anonüümne ütles ...

Postimehe juhtkirjast jääb mulje, et just Sina koos oma 50-e jüngriga oled sõnavabadust ahistava seaduse vastu võtnud. Kommentaariumi lugedes ilmneb, et oled ikka paras tõbras küll. Kuidas siis uue seaduse valguses peaks ülaltoodud case välja nägema?

Marek ütles ...

Enamjaolt on olemas seadused kuid neid ei rakendada või kui siis väga üksikutel juhtudel.
Seadus toimib ka siis kui seda rakendama ei pea.
Ma arvan, et Eestis läheb sama moodi.
Seadus loob piirid ja neist hakatakse lihtsalt pidama.

Tõbras jah?
Selelga on nii:
tõbras <33:.tõpra, tõbrast> vmo lojus, veis, loom

Loom ma olen. Nagu isegi.
Head ööd!

elektritsaabtasuta.blogspot.com ütles ...

Inimsööjad lisaks inimeste söömisele soovivad ka austust aga seda nad vastuvõetud seaduse abil ei saa .
Austus tuleb välja teenida aga kuda saab austada inimsööjat?!!!

Raha kasvab puus...vaata eBayst palju maksvad päikesepaneelide kristallid ja arvuta välja tankla maksumus:
http://www.allcarselectric.com/blog/1051887_zero-emission-solar-charging-at-chevrolet-volt-plant-video

Te rohelised võiksite teha näidistalu mis oleks energiasõltumatu s.o. kõik talus vajaminev energia peab tulema tuulest ja päikesestvõi muust taastuvenergiast-mitte mingil juhul ei tohi kasutada fossiilseid kütuseid!!!Elektritraktorid on juba ammu olnud kasutusel jpms.

Anonüümne nr. 2 ütles ...

Margus Raha, pane palun tähele, et oluline erinevus on selles, kas ma kommenteerin "ebasobivaid väärtushinnanguid" omades mõnes foorumis VÕI ma ise sean üles enda ajalehe (mida üks ajaveeb sisuliselt ju on) ning siis seal asun oma õigust sõnavabadusele teostama.

Marek, ootan huviga ning loodan, et seadusesätted jäävad üles otsimata. Las see apsakas jääb praeguse parlamendi koolirahaks.

Anonüümne ütles ...

Hola, Interesante, no va a continuar con este artнculo?

Anonüümne ütles ...

А! Nice Post. Dank

Anonüümne ütles ...

Tõepoolest kahju, et kvoodid said raisatud 500 elektriautole arvestades, et enamjaolt toodame elektrit kivisütt põletades ning el-autode tehnoloogia on arengu algfaasis. Palju mõistlikum oleks investeerida päiksepatareidesse.

Edu sulle Marek Strandberg. Loodan, et poliitiline kompost sinust siiski ei saa.