Request for Written Reasons for PFU 28 August 2012 decision refusing to process Complaint against Nina Berglund, Editor: News & Views from Norway: Violation of 3.1, 3.2, 4.5 of Code of Ethics of the Norwegian Press in Article: Breivik Moved to New Prison ; in the absence of Mr. Breivik’s consent.
The written reasons for the decision which is to include the committee’s evaluation of the facts and the relevant Principles in Conflict: Editorial Ethics | Public Interest in Accurate Information | Mr. Breivik’s Representation (Verbal, written and conduct); such as: (A) The Findings of Fact; (B) The Relevant Principles in Conflict; (C) Application of Facts to the Relevant Principles in Conflict
Alternatively, I would imagine if the Committee is seriously concerned about the issue of Mr. Breivik’s lack of consent, then the Committee could ask Mr. Breivik to provide the Committee with an argument upon which he justifies his lack of consent; which would provide the Committee with a better understanding and whether Mr. Breivik’s reasons and evidence for his lack of consent are justified with regard to the relevant principles involved.
Text of Email:
Sent: Monday, September 03, 2012 4:58 PM
To: 'Kjell Nyhuus'; 'PFU: GenSec: Per Edgar Kokkvold'; 'Press Complaints Commission'
Cc: 'Nina Berglund'; Crt: Lippestad: Tord Jordet; 'Ingrid Nergården Jortveit'; 'Trude Hansen'; 'PFU: Sec: Monica Andersen'
Subject: PFU: Request for Written Reasons for PFU 28.08.12 decision in Lara Johnstone v. News & Views from Norway
Per Edgar Kokkvold: General Secretary
Kjell Nyhuus: Commission Secretary
Press Complaints Commission (PFU)
Box 46 Sentrum, 0101 Oslo
Email: [email protected]
CC: Editor: Nina Berglund, News and Views from Norway
CC: Mr. Anders Breivik: c/o Lippestad Attorneys
Request for Written Reasons for PFU 28 August 2012 decision refusing to process Complaint against Nina Berglund, Editor: News & Views from Norway: Violation of 3.1, 3.2, 4.5 of Code of Ethics of the Norwegian Press in Article: Breivik Moved to New Prison ; in the absence of Mr. Breivik’s consent.
[1] Chronology of Facts with regard to PFU Complaints Policies
[see attached (PDF)]
[2] Relief Requested:
The written reasons for the decision which is to include the committee’s evaluation of the facts and the relevant Principles in Conflict: Editorial Ethics | Public Interest in Accurate Information | Mr. Breivik’s Representation (Verbal, written and conduct); such as:
A. The Findings of Fact
B. The Relevant Principles in Conflict
C. Application of Facts to the Relevant Principles in Conflict
[see attached (PDF)]
Alternatively, I would imagine if the Committee is seriously concerned about the issue of Mr. Breivik’s lack of consent, then the Committee could ask Mr. Breivik to provide the Committee with an argument upon which he justifies his lack of consent; which would provide the Committee with a better understanding and whether Mr. Breivik’s reasons and evidence for his lack of consent are justified with regard to the relevant principles involved.
I would imagine that generally speaking the only justifications for denying a complainant’s complaint, in the absence of consent from the ‘concerned person’ would be:
(1) the ‘person concerned’ is not a public person, but a private person
(2) the matter of interest relating to the ‘concerned person’ is a private matter, not in the public interest
(3) the ‘person concerned’ has made a clear verbal or written or behavioural statement that unequivocally conveys their desire that they do not want any further discussion of the case
(4) further public discussion about the matter of interest related to the ‘person concerned’ would be damaging to the reputation or emotional wellbeing of the ‘concerned person’.
(5) Mr. Breivik is not a private person, but a very public person.
(6) The factual inaccuracy is not a private inaccuracy, but a legal inaccuracy, which sets a precedent for journalists and editors to malign other accused, as being ‘found guilty’ without any court of law having made a finding of guilt
(7) Mr. Breivik has never requested any media publication that he does not want any further discussion of his alleged guilt/innocence by the media; to the contrary; he slaughtered 77 persons (and would have slaughtered more) because of media censorship about his alleged necessity motives for his criminal act.
The Committee has provided no justifications for their decision whatsoever, detailing what factors ‘Public Interest in Accurate Reporting’ and ‘Non Consent of Person Concerned’ and Editorial Ethics’ they considered, and how and why the facts in this matter are relevant to the relevant principles in conflict.
Respectfully Submitted
Lara Johnstone
Radical Honoursty EcoFeminist
www.ecofeminist-v-breivik.weebly.com
Habeus Mentem: Right 2 Legal Sanity
www.facebook.com/Habeus.Mentem