https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsjMe0TWlPo&feature=youtu.be |
Part 2: http://www.verdensalt.dk/2015/03/follow-ups-on-niels-harrit-courtroom.html
Part 3: http://www.verdensalt.dk/2015/03/part-3-niels-harrit-courtroom-drama-in.html (censured by Google Plus)
It can be easily argued that this ruling did not conform to the court’s rulings in similar cases. In my case, the court ignored the complete absence of a factual basis for the libelous words the newspaper had published. All previous libel cases have been decided on the absence or the presence of proof. In this case, there was no proof.
Furthermore, libel must always be evaluated in context — the point here being that I had absolutely nothing to do with the context of the editorial comment. Members of the 9/11 Truth Movement and I, by name, were held up as prototypes for “madness,” together with Holocaust deniers and anti-Darwinists, and were called “crackpots” along the way. The High Court ruled that these smears were acceptable!
The hard copy of the judgment is a 10-page document that relates mostly to the legal aspects of the case. But, importantly, in this official document of the proceedings, the court acknowledges that:
( ae911truth.org/) On March 27th, the Danish Eastern High Court affirmed the judgment from the City Court in the libel suit I brought against Danish newspaper Weekendavisen. In so doing, it acquitted Weekendavisen of the charge of libel.
It can be easily argued that this ruling did not conform to the court’s rulings in similar cases. In my case, the court ignored the complete absence of a factual basis for the libelous words the newspaper had published. All previous libel cases have been decided on the absence or the presence of proof. In this case, there was no proof.
Furthermore, libel must always be evaluated in context — the point here being that I had absolutely nothing to do with the context of the editorial comment. Members of the 9/11 Truth Movement and I, by name, were held up as prototypes for “madness,” together with Holocaust deniers and anti-Darwinists, and were called “crackpots” along the way. The High Court ruled that these smears were acceptable!
The hard copy of the judgment is a 10-page document that relates mostly to the legal aspects of the case. But, importantly, in this official document of the proceedings, the court acknowledges that: