The case in summary: – Three film students were refused to film a meeting about the Engebø project organized by Nordic Mining. – The company claimed that the meeting was a ‘private event’ and that the filming would be an embarrassment to the public and employees. – The students make a short documentary about the mining plan at Førdefjorden. – Experts disagree whether the meeting was legally closed or public in nature, but that the company should have shown more openness, both for legal and reputational reasons. – Secretary General of the Norwegian Editors’ Association, Reidun Kjelling Nybø, believes the students should have been allowed to to film the meeting. The summary is made by an AI service from OpenAI. The content is quality assured by news’s journalists before publication. Three film students had to leave their camera equipment outside before they were allowed to enter a meeting about the Engebø project at Vevring school on Thursday evening. The meeting organizer Nordic Mining pointed out that it was a “private event” and that the filming would be an embarrassment to the participants. – We are very disappointed, says film director Frid Brox (24), who is a student at the Norwegian Television School in Lillehammer. Together with photographer Are Botnevik (21) and sound engineer Emma Løvstad (20), she is making a short documentary about the mining plan at Førdefjorden. The fundamental question is whether the “information meeting” was of a closed or public nature, or something in between. See the rental agreement and the invitation below. From the correspondence between the filmmakers and Nordic Mining (Tone Løtuft). Nordic mining argues that it is a private event for invited neighbours. The lease agreement with the municipality contains no clauses about camera use. – Shows poor judgement. news has been in contact with several experts who believe that the case is legally in “borderland” as the meeting took place at a publicly owned school. Others make a non-legal point that the company should play with open cards for reasons of reputation. – I think the students should obviously be able to film here, says Reidun Kjelling Nybø, who is secretary general of the Norwegian Association of Editors. – This is not just a legal question, but is about the attitude to openness. And here they really show poor judgement. The political battle over disposal in the Førdefjorden has been going on since 2006, and received a preliminary clarification when the Nature Conservation Union lost the “fjord lawsuit” in January. They have since notified that they are appealing the verdict. Photo: Preben Nedreberg Holmøy / news Nordic Mining wrote in a reply to news that they wish to be open, but that a camera in the room could limit the conversation and make the participants less bold. They add that the film students came to the meeting “together with around 10 people, who we consider to be members of nature conservation organisations” and that “their behavior was more marked by activism than a desire to make an objective documentary”. The film students deny that they came with others. They explain that they arrived ten minutes before the meeting, “like most others”, and that the alleged “activists” were there by virtue of being neighbors to the project. See the full response from Nordic Mining below. Nordic Mining responds to the criticism – The neighborhood meeting we hold for those who live near the plant is an arena where we, in collaboration with our suppliers, inform about what is going on at our plant right now. And where neighbors get the opportunity to give direct feedback and ask us questions about this. – We are not obliged to hold these meetings, but we want to prioritize them, because it is useful for us to have a close dialogue with the neighbors of the Engebø project. – The meeting is a private event under the auspices of Nordic Mining/Engebø Rutile and Garnet and out of consideration for our employees, suppliers and several neighbors who reported to the site, we do not want to be filmed while we hold these meetings. The venue is therefore rented and not open to the public for the occasion. Although the meeting is aimed at neighbours, we have not seen any restrictions on who can participate. Editorial journalists who have asked have been given access to the meeting, but without using a camera. They get the opportunity to talk to participants who choose to do so before and after the meeting, without putting a “brake” on questions that are asked during the meeting itself. – The four film students were given the same opportunity as editorial media, but pressed to film the meeting. They brought the meeting together with around 10 people, who we count as members of nature conservation organizations who have not participated in previous neighborhood meetings. It also came to light that this week the film students have been staying with them during their stay in Vevring. We believe their behavior bore more the mark of activism than a desire to make an objective documentary and that the purpose of the meeting was deliberately obstructed by some participants, even without filming. As the behavior was, there was a chilling effect which prevented that questions about current activity could not be asked for those who wished to. – Detailed environmental information is not presented at these neighborhood meetings. We have our own forum for this in our resource group, where we have on several occasions invited both the Nature Conservation Association and the Forum for nature and outdoor recreation (FNF) to participate. They have refused this. Nordic Mining strives to be open. We have conducted and participated in a large number of open meetings in many different forums about the Engebø project. We are happy to have a debate and we have done so time and time again. – The main rule is that we stand up when editorial media ask about it. A great deal of information, including environmental information, about the project has been dealt with by professional authorities and is available. – No media strategic achievement for the company – When the company holds an information meeting for neighbors of the project, it must be considered a public meeting. The company itself confirms this by letting in students who are not neighbours, says Trygve Aas Olsen at the Department of Journalism (IJ). Tarjei Bekkedal is a professor at the Faculty of Law in Bergen. He believes the matter is “in borderland”, but that the students “basically have access to film the event” as long as they “document” and do not “disrupt” the meeting. See more reactions below. NTB Jon Wessel-Aas – When the public lends out its premises – the school – for such a meeting, in my view, there is a responsibility on the municipality to demand that the organizer does not limit freedom of expression in this way. Section 100 of the Basic Law sets out (in the sixth paragraph) a duty for public authorities to facilitate an open and informed public discussion. Sturlason / Kagge forlag Trygve Aas Olsen – When the company holds an information meeting for neighbors about the project, it must be considered a public meeting. The company can hardly impose a duty of secrecy on the participants, and then they can also freely tell about what happened at the meeting. The fact that someone records a video is just one way of telling the story. The case left an impression that the company is afraid of publicity about its operations. It is never good for a company, and just shows how important it is to be open about what you are doing. Eva Dobos Tarjei Bekkedal – Basically, the film students have access to film the event. The question is instead whether they can be denied access, or whether conditions can be set for access. The main rule is that the organizer can regulate access to private events on private premises. Here we are a bit in borderland, but I think freedom of expression will be an obstacle to denying students access to a public meeting in a public building when the event is of public interest. But the students must document, not disrupt, the meeting. Kat Gade Tarjei Leer-Salvesen – The question this case raises is about more than law. It is also about attitudes. If a mining company facing major natural encroachments feels the need to exclude students with film cameras, they are sending a frightening signal about what kind of player they plan to be in society. Professor at the University of Oslo, Eivind Smith, is among the leading authorities in the country on public law. He believes that Nordic Mining is legally on the right track, but that they are missing the essentials: – It could have been a private event even if it was in a school room. But in any case, this was probably not a media strategic success for the company. High threshold for breach of privacy Expert on right of access, Tarjei Leer-Salvesen, tells news that it is up to those who document – not the organizer – to take care of what could be a nuisance for the guests. – This concerns a meeting at a school. Everything suggests that it should be possible to film what is happening, he says. Sound manager Emma LøvstadPhotographer Are BotnevikDirector Frid Hildridatter Brox In a judgment from 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that even photographing a wedding was not enough for it to qualify as a “violation of privacy”. The question the court decided was to what extent Se og Hør violated privacy when they printed the picture from the wedding of Lars Lillo-Stenberg and Andrine Sæther. The court emphasized that weddings are public acts, and that in this case the wedding took place in a public area. Vevring school Thursday evening. Meeting organizer Nordic Mining believes it was a private event and that the filming would disturb the audience. Experts reply that the meeting was by definition public and that it is the publicist’s – not the organiser’s – job to take care of the audience’s shyness. Photo: news
ttn-69
The mining company Nordic Mining prevents students from documenting a meeting about the Engebø project – news Vestland
