Broadcasting Prohibition and Penalties
Broadcasting Prohibition and penalties
The interim between Koos H. and SBS Broadcasting B.V. (Peter R. de Vries) got the last few days a lot of media attention. The judge of the Court of Amsterdam in the award dated April 9, 2010 held that the SBS with a hidden camera in a TBS clinic shots of the sentenced to life Koos H. not broadcast. SBS does not use the information obtained in the broadcast of Peter R. de Vries and may Koos H. quoted verbatim. As you know, Peter R. de Vries the verdict of the judge ignored the beeld anyway broadcast under its own interests. This has at least SBS penalties forfeited. These interests will be set by the judge put.
The judge used in assessing the standard argument that the allocation of the progress of H. Koos would limit in Article 10 paragraph 1 ECHR enshrined right to freedom of expression. Such a restriction under Article 10 paragraph 2 of the ECHR is permitted only if it is provided by law, and necessary in a democratic society to protect interests in that article, including the protection of personal privacy. Not in dispute is that the images in violation of the privacy of Koos H. and Koos H. as well as the detainee is entitled to the protection of his private life.
SBS suggests that broadcast a high social interest and great news value. The broadcasts include news because on some unsolved crimes and revelations of Koos H. able to answer many unanswered questions from survivors and victims. However, Koos H. assumes that it is secretly recording conversations, with confidence that he has had a childhood friend, to violate his privacy, that a total ban on broadcast warrants.
The judge then makes a distinction between information and beeld-/geluidsopnamen. The information received by the judge relating to events that have seriously shaken the society and the minds years after the conviction of Koos H. still active. It is also plausible that the information not otherwise than through the clandestine recording could be obtained. Under these circumstances, considering the importance of Koos H. in protecting his privacy and the humane application of his detention is not against the interests in disclosure of this information, the judge said.
Regarding the beeld-/geluidsopnamen Koos H. the judge decides otherwise, however. Koos is the beeld-/geluidsopnamen H. recognizable image, his environment to see and hear his voice. There are also images taken with a hidden camera in a private clinic, where Koos H. could expect to a certain extent in his privacy protected. In addition, the broadcast of the images have a negative impact on the manner of implementing challenging the sentence, the possible treatment of his psychological problems and treatment by fellow prisoners. These interests weigh heavily in the judge so that a ban on the broadcasting of the recordings is considered justified.
However, SBS (R. Peter Vries) sent in addition to the information in the forbidden image / sound recordings of Koos H. out. This, defendants have SBS Broadcasting B.V. and Endemol Netherlands B.V. acted contrary to the verdict of the judge and in any case, penalties forfeited. Under the operative part of the judge defendants forfeit a fine of € 15,000.00 for each violation of the prohibitions. The prohibition reads as follows: “The judge prohibited the defendants without the prior consent of plaintiff (any part of) the secret video and audio recordings of plaintiff, made in the clinic, broadcast or otherwise publicly available. SBS and Endemol have one of the three broadcasts about Koos H. Despite a ban on broadcast, which leads to a violation of that prohibition. This they forfeit a total of € 15,000.00 to penalties.
Random Posts:
Posted in Cases | 
Tags: Broadcasting Penalties, Broadcasting Prohibition, Protection of Personal Privacy