(Dagbladet): Earlier today, Ubaydullah Hussain acquitted of Oslo District Court for indirectly inciting terror.
Professor at the Faculty of Law in Bergen, Hans F. Marthinussen supports the acquittal, calling on Twitter today the issue of “incredibly embarrassing for underwriting arm race.”
– Ubaydullah Hussain was of course acquitted, he writes on. Dagbladet he explains criticism:
– It is a fundamental requirement for a democratic state that one must have a clear legal authority to penalize citizens. It was not here, quite simply, he says.
Indirect terrorist incitement
Ubaydullah Hussain was charged with five Facebook-speech, where he in various ways supports and shelves acts of terrorism and murder.
Attorney Carl Fredrik Fari mean utterances must be interpreted as indirect incitement to carry out terror because the utterances go so far to glorify terrorist acts that they must be understood as a call to implement them.
Oslo District Court did not agree with this:
“In relation to criminal utterances, the point is that you can only be punished for what you have said, not what one might conceivably have stated “said the ruling, which Marthinussen mean” speak for themselves. “
– To’d go in and argue that an utterance indirectly encourage terrorism without the reasonable isolation to interpret the like that, I mean it’s bad. I think it should never have been indicted with such a weak foundation in criminal law. I would think the prosecution unit has better things to spend the resources on their, he said.
– The Internet is full of all sorts of statements about the one and the other. There is reason to wonder if such a controversial person with utsagt that so many react so strongly to more easily subjected to criminal prosecution. When are we as a society about to violate constitutional ways. Can you live in Norway such a suspicion? He asks.
– We disagree
Hussain was prosecuted for violation of Penal Code section 147c, which is about incitement to terror, and it was laid down alleging ten months’ imprisonment.
penal provision is hardly used in the Norwegian legal system before, and the case is considered important about the distinction between free speech and threats.
prosecutor, Attorney Carl Fredrik Fari, has previously said he does not ignore the fact that the case will proceed, possibly all the way to the Supreme Court .
Prosecutor Geir Evanger, who was deputy Fari because of fall break, says they take the court’s decision into account.
– We can only conclude that the court believes that Hussain did not go so far in their utterances that are considered as indirect incitement to terrorism. We disagree with that, saying Evanger said.
Even calling Ubaydullah Hussain court’s decision “a blow on the PST.”
No comments:
Post a Comment