– Very few people, if any, benefit from seeing a real murder take place, says Kaare Andre Ødegaard, professional officer in the online patrol Sør-Vest. After the murder on Karmøy on Saturday evening, a video has spread on social media. On Monday, the Sør-West police district was made aware that an editor-controlled media player had published an uncensored version of the murder. Subject manager in the network patrol South-West, Kaare Andre Ødegaard. Photo: Erik Waage / news Another media house also published the video uncensored, but removed it after the police made contact. The other media player did not meet the police, and the video has not been removed. Was given the opportunity to unpublish When the police were made aware of this, they contacted the online newspaper and stated that the content may be a breach of the Criminal Code. The media player was given the opportunity to remove the content without prosecution, but chose not to publish the video. On Tuesday, the Sør-Vest police district therefore decided to report the media actor for breaching section 267a of the Criminal Code, regarding the sharing of offensive images. Anyone who unjustifiably makes available pictures, films or audio recordings of someone who is subjected to, among other things, violence, can be punished with a fine or imprisonment of up to 6 months. – They were given the opportunity to remove this content without us opening a criminal case. The police have today chosen to open a criminal case against the media actor who chose to let the uncensored video continue to be out, says Ødegaard to news. Sør-West police district has been contacted by children under teenage age who have had the video sent to them against their will. – They don’t necessarily know what they see until they see it, says Ødegaard. The paragraph is from 2021 and has little case law. The police became aware early on that parts of the violent incident were filmed and spread on social media. Photo: Gisle Jørgensen / news The media actor: Neither the victim nor the perpetrator can be identified. news has been in contact with the editor of the online newspaper. The person does not want to give comments to news because the media player is not named in the case. This is how the online newspaper justifies the publication of the video in the case: “NN has assessed the case. We believe enough time has passed for the police to review the video and secure leads. Neither the victim nor the perpetrator can be identified on the video. We believe it has news value and public interest and therefore choose to publish it.” No public interest One of those reacting to the website choosing to publish the video is Lars Johan Hereid. Five years ago, his mother was killed at Vår Frelser’s graveyard in Haugesund. – If such a video had existed of the murder of my mother, it would have been devastating. It would have been horrible. Lars Johan Hereid reacts strongly to the media actor’s decision to publish the video. Photo: Marthe Synnøve Johannessen / news Mother Bjørg Marie Skeisvoll Hereid (67) from Karmøy was walking alone with her dog in the cemetery when she was attacked by a man with an axe. Several people witnessed the incident, including children. She was an accidental victim. Now the son reacts strongly to the online newspaper’s decision to publish the video. – What is the motivation for publishing it here? It has no public interest. Hereid believes that the argument that you cannot identify anyone on the video is not a good enough reason to publish the video. – Everyone in the local community knows who this is. I understand that this video may help the police in an investigation, but publishing this as a form of social pornography. I don’t understand that. Lawyer: – At the core of what the section is supposed to protect against Ola Johan Settem is a professor of jurisprudence at the University of Stavanger. – It is unusual, as far as I know, for media houses to publish this type of video without any form of censorship, and without any more convincing justification for why it is in the public interest to publish the video in this way, Settem tells news. Ola Johan Settem, professor of jurisprudence at the University of Stavanger. Photo: Marie von Krogh He believes it is likely that the media actor may be convicted. – As I see it, this is a type of video that is at the core of what Section 267 a of the Criminal Code is supposed to protect against. It shows someone being subjected to very serious violence, resulting in death, and is not censored in any way. – The media actor believes this is in the public interest. What do you think of this argument? – It is very central in the balance between freedom of expression and privacy to what extent what has been published is of public interest. Based on case law, it must be assessed whether the video itself, and publishing it uncensored, is in the public interest and can be defended. I find it difficult to see that what they write on their own websites constitutes any convincing justification in this respect. – Is it the media player or individuals who will be punished in this case? – Both parts are a possibility. Published 18.06.2024, at 15.29 Updated 18.06.2024, at 17.21
ttn-69
The police open criminal proceedings against a media actor after sharing a murder video from Karmøy – news Rogaland – Local news, TV and radio
