Eivind Berge, the Norwegian Men’s Rights blogger who was arrested after making repeated death threats against police on his blog, has been released from jail. The country’s Supreme Court has ruled that his comments – in which, among other things, he talked about how killing police was on his “bucket list” – are not illegal. His property will be returned to him and he is evidently entitled to compensation for his time in jail.
As far as I can figure it from the Google-translated articles I’ve read, the Supreme Court has ruled that statements on the internet are not “public” and therefore his threats don’t count as “incitement” under the law. Here’s what one article says:
Supreme Court’s Appeals Committee believes statements Berge has made on his blog are not covered by the Freedom of the definition in the Penal Code. incitement to violence and murder of police officers are therefore not presented publicly in the legal sense and therefore is not criminal, says the Supreme Court.
Apparently the issue was a fairly narrow legal one. According to the same article, the law under which he was prosecuted (written long before the birth of the Internet) “operates with a public safety and publishing concept that … do not take account of electronic publishing on the Internet.” The majority on the Supreme Court, the article goes on to say, felt that “the indictment includes actions that are clearly worthy of punishment,” but that existing law does not allow punishment for statements made on the Internet.
If anyone here knows Norwegian, let me know if this is correct. Here and here are several more articles in Norwegian, translated by Google. Here’s an article in English, written before the Supreme Court rendered its judgment, that spells out the issues a little more clearly.
On his blog, Berge celebrates his victory in the courts:
My blog is legal after all. The police had no lawful basis for pursuing criminal charges against me. This means the case has collapsed for the prosecution and I will be entitled to compensation for the three weeks I spent in prison. I was arrested and jailed for speech which the Supreme Court has ruled is legal, so obviously the entire prosecution was utterly baseless.
He considers his release a giant victory for Men’s Rights:
Being a political prisoner provided a welcome boost to my activism. … The entire process has been tremendously empowering for the Men’s Rights Movement. This spectacular prosecution of an MRA sparked debate and demonstrated to the horror of the feminist establishment that there are more antifeminists out there than they knew. I am not some kind of extremist easily dismissed, even though some of my writings may appear somewhat ungenteel. While my kind of violent rhetoric is legal, it is no longer needed. We are strong enough to fight feminism in more elegant and subtle ways now.
I will highlight some of Berge’s “ungenteel” opinions in future posts.
See here and here for previous posts of mine on Berge, which include many examples of his “violent rhetoric.”
Sir Bodsworth, I don’t think any women will apply there. I actually haven’t thought about that very much.
On the other hand as stupid as this is -and I can’t reiterate enough that this is incredibly, painfully, heart-breakingly stupid- it’s also kind of refreshing.
It’s nice to see an MRA just come out and admit that his “activism” is based on nothing more than his inability to get his dick out of the sand.
i am shocked to find out you havent thought this nonsense all the way through
Of course you haven’t. You’re a fucking idiot and this whole idea is stupid.
“2. Second group would be guys with some expeirence, but usually very limited. They could benefit from arranged DATES with willling women, not sex or marriage, ffs and being under a government issues wingmen.”
If none of the women these men know are willing to date them, why would women be willing to date them just because a government worker said so? The issue you’re trying very hard to ignore is that if no one is willing, then no one is willing. Adding an extra layer of civil service isn’t going to get around the fact that women don’t like you. Also, the number of women who’d say yes to “a date with a guy, any guy – I’m willing!” is pretty much zero.
That’s because you’re aware the problem isn’t really sex. I was just establishing that even if it was, it’s much easier to solve than the idiot thinks.
@avictimofmurderers
Okay, so let’s say the government does arrange this date service for incels. And every single one of your dates shows up, isn’t interested in you in any way, barely responds to what you say, constantly glances at her watch and after the allotted time has passed she goes away and you never see her again. How exactly does that help?
You think a woman on a government-mandated date is going to fall in love and have your children?
If you could talk a woman into that, you wouldn’t need government-mandated dates in the first place.
“Every woman who did not sleep with Bob Smith, you hereby stand accused of murder-by-vaginal-withholding. How do you plead?”
If you’re serious, get into therapy. If you’re not serious, stop pretending to hold yourself hostage for pussy.
Pussies do not negotiate with terrorists.
“I actually haven’t thought about that very much.”
Yes, now this would be the problem. Perhaps if you did think about that, you might understand other people’s objections to your scheme.
“And, again, I ask: How on earth can lonely people gain meaningful companionship from a government sponsored program that would literally force unwilling participants to have dinner with them?
How?
You claim that you don’t want women to be forced to fuck you. If no woman wants to continue seeing you after a single date then how will government intervention fix this? Will your issues with loneliness, celibacy, and childlessness be cured by going out once a week with a government worker?”
They’re not unwilling participants. These girls would be paid to go out with incels. If nothing works out they still get their money but we never see each other again. If these is chemistry a relationship might start.
If a girl doesn’t want to see me anymore after the first date government will just try to find me another one, for which I will also have to pay.
In order to avoid scammers a girl who rejects 30 men, for example, will be fired from the program. She was either a scammer or unlucky.
Victim maybe you would have more luck if you applied for the government job, and went out on dates with lonely women? And got paid for it.
“I actually haven’t thought about that very much.
Yes, now this would be the problem. Perhaps if you did think about that, you might understand other people’s objections to your scheme.”
No, I didn’t think about it because your question is silly. Few money would applay to such a program-
So a woman HAS to have a relationship with one out of every thirty men she is set up with or she gets fired. Yeah, totally legit and not rapey at all.
remind me why it’s the government’s fault that you ooze nastiness and entitlement again?
why can’t you just use a dating site? it’s not a legal right to have a relationship, i mean, i know that has been said ad nauseam.
You persist with the ridiculous notion that there will be mass carnage unless the government recognises and addresses the serious injustice in you not receiving the love to which you think you are entitled. this is just such a load of codswallop.
TL; DR whiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiine
So… why can’t you arrange your own dates? This confuses me deeply.
So fucking stupid.
If they don’t want to go out with you but are only doing it for the money, how will this help you achieve a relationship, sex, and children? Any woman who doesn’t decide to continue dating someone like you after going out on thirty different dates isn’t a scammer – she’s an employee. I’m not scamming my clients after I complete the job outlined in our contract because I won’t continue to work for them for free.
I’ve been paid and unless they want to continue paying me for my services our relationship is over.
Women don’t want to date you. You want the government to offer women money to date you one time. They still don’t want to date you but now they’re being paid to spend a designated amount of time with you. Just once. How will this solve your problem with loneliness and companionship?
dude, you’re suggesting the government go into the business of running a dating service for angry dudes with entitlement issues. you don’t really get to call anything else ‘silly’.
So fucking stupid.
You’ve already stated that dating agencies don’t work because there are more men than women and men find this unsatisfying.
So how is Sir Bodworth’s question silly you fucking moron?
Would this Ministry for Dating Angry Men be a Commonwealth or State responsibility? What relation would it have to the Ministry of Silly Walks?
“Okay, so let’s say the government does arrange this date service for incels. And every single one of your dates shows up, isn’t interested in you in any way, barely responds to what you say, constantly glances at her watch and after the allotted time has passed she goes away and you never see her again. How exactly does that help?”
It doesn’t help. Obviously, a completely wrong person was chosen and another one has to be.
“You think a woman on a government-mandated date is going to fall in love and have your children?
If you could talk a woman into that, you wouldn’t need government-mandated dates in the first place.”
Think of it this way. You never know when you will meet a real woman for you.
“Every woman who did not sleep with Bob Smith, you hereby stand accused of murder-by-vaginal-withholding. How do you plead?”
If you’re serious, get into therapy. If you’re not serious, stop pretending to hold yourself hostage for pussy.
Pussies do not negotiate with terrorists.”
You’re misinterpreting what I am saying completely. No women should be punished but parents and government who didn’t provide more chances for such men. Their attempts to find them on their own usually end in failure- even if they find one they will not likely to keep her because of neediness and inexperience- don’ forget most of them try a few times a year or even less !. It’s lunacy to say that they should succeed alone. They might, but they also might finish as 50 year-old virgins or George Sodini.
Therapy is charlatanism.
I love how victim’s argument boils down to “wouldn’t it be great if there was an agency where women who want to go out with men sign up, and then go out with men they like?”
Dude. It’s called OKCupid.
but again, what if the problem is just that youre a huge asshole and everyone can tell you’re a huge asshole?
This explains this whole conversation.
How much are women supposed to be paid for talking to this dude? He must owe quite a bit to a few manboobzers by now.