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.”
@avictimofmurderers
Oh, boo-fucking-hoo, not a 50-year-old virgin, that’s the worst thing that can happen to anybody ever!!!!!!!!!!
BECAUSE THE ANSWER COULDN’T POSSIBLY BE “TRY MORE OFTEN THAN TWICE A YEAR”, NOW COULD IT???
If a woman takes a position as a professional dater, but then falls in love and devotes herself only to you, she just lost her job.
Seems like kind of a conflict of interest. I guess you think you’re just that charming.
…In which case, why the hell do you need paid dates again?
“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?”
She is an employee but she not for a very big fee. She might like me during the date and decide to see me after the initial date. Of course, she might have a boyfriend (that would not be recommendable but hard to check) but if she just uses those dates just to to get money she will be out after date 30. If she has a boyfriend and falls in love with the guy she had a date with that’s his loss.
In any case, it’s a good solution for men who never get dates and such men do existl
When it comes to extremely shy men who never even held hands their theapy would be different- gruadual introduction to women, sex surrogates and the wingmen.
Seriously, I don’t understand the mindset where you can’t talk to women at all right now, but if you got to talk to women on a date, that would change everything and you’d have a life partner right away. The construct of a “date” is just not that magical. You’re still going to have to figure out how to talk to a woman.
Wait a minute, wait a minute…
If a woman doesn’t fall for you on the job then she was obviously a wrong person and the government should provide you with a different woman.
Despite all the flaws in logic and the complete lack of thought that you’ve put into this stupid, stupid idea let’s just suppose for a moment that this was put into practice.
I know, I know. Stay with me though.
The government starts its state-sancitioned dating agency. Men who can’t get dates sign up and there are somehow enough paid-daters to keep the whole thing running. After time, people pair off because naturally women are going to be very attracted to men they’ve been paid by the government to date.
But you, the cheese, are still standing alone. None of the women who were paid to date you are interested in being in a relationship with you. By your own -and I hesitate to even use this word- “logic” aren’t you, therefore, an obviously wrong person. If the government sets you up on 30 dates and no woman wants to see you again isn’t it clear that you are the problem?
Should the government continue wasting its money on paying women to date you once its clear that you suck?
There is already a system where women are piad to be available for creepy dudes to talk to. It’s called “Ladies Night.”
You don’t seem to understand how like and love work at all.
It’s not a dice roll. It’s not a thing where two people go on a date, and there’s a 1 in 2d20 chance that Love Will Happen. You actually have to, like, interact.
Just shoving your face at woman after woman does not mean you’re going to eventually hit the Love Woman if you keep at it long enough.
So now we have one troll complaining that women go on dates for money, and one troll complaining that women don’t go on dates for money.
If she’s in constant rotation, being paid to date men like you, then whether or not she’s being paid very much to date you specifically is irrelevant. If she gets paid a fee to go out every night of the week with a different guy then she’s an employee and will, in all likelihood, earn a significant wage. I’m sorry, how much are these women supposed to be paid to date you? I mean, you say it won’t be forced because the women would be paid so you’re thinking of a reasonable amount, correct? I mean, if women are going to do this -and not be forced- they’re going to have to be paid fairly well. And will the government be subsidizing their makeup, wardrobe, and hair styling? Will there be an actual stipend or will they just be able to write it off on their taxes?
See? The stupid is rubbing off on me and now I can’t even do blockquotes right!
You can’t roll a 1 on 2d20. You’ve just rigged the game so that he’s permanently incel!
@ Ugh: “There is already a system where women are piad to be available for creepy dudes to talk to. It’s called “Ladies Night.””
+1 Internet to you!
You can’t have a 1 in 1 chance of date success unless you have the Mind Control perk. :p
I shouldn’t have made a probability a dice roll, though, because now they have to roll for love after they do the probability roll and that’s just needlessly complicated.
Let’s say 2d20 and love requires a roll of 30 or above.
sheesh.
@ Cliff “So now we have one troll complaining that women go on dates for money, and one troll complaining that women don’t go on dates for money.”
Yup! And this troll calling for additional government programs, while other trolls bitterly denounce Big Daddy Government. This is why I keep wishing they’d actually interact more; it seems to me that they have more to dispute with each other than anyone else.
And of course a date can only go two ways – acceptance and rejection. It can’t lead to platonic friendship, a one night stand, a short affair that peters out after a while, a long affair that doesn’t lead to cohabitation, an on-again-off again relationship, a marriage that ends in divorce, or a second date, but this time I promise not to spill marinara sauce on your dress. It’s all or nothing.
Okay, to start with, I could just as easily say you could always find other places to meet women. Second, I never said the inability to play tennis would effect your sexual needs because that’s not how comparisons work you fucking twit. It effects your tennis need, which are acting as stand-in for sexual needs because this is an analogy.
And yeah, if tennis was vital to my happiness (Which does actually happen, by the way. See: aspiring tennis pros.), then fucking obviously I’d be depressed if I couldn’t play. But you know what would still be pretty traumatic? Being assaulted with a fucking tennis racquet by someone I’d chosen not to play with.
You know, there is something you can do. You can hire sex workers to go on dates with you. Maybe one of them will eventually want more than one. You say you would be willing to pay a fee to the government, why do you want to do that when you can just pay the fee to the individual providing the service? I think the chance of someone actually wanting to continue dating you is the same with a freelance person as it is with someone who is a government employee. Or are you just really cheap and in your mind this imaginary government program would cost less?
THIS IS INCREDIBLY FUCKING STUPID WHAT IS THIS?
Dude, are you seriously blaming mommy and daddy for your inability to get laid? How old are you, 16?
I am shocked, shocked I tell you, that you haven’t thought this bullshit through.
OK, where’s Steele? His would explode at this asshole actually wanting women’s livelihood’s supported by going dates with complete fucking losers.
Oh, Robert, you spectacular jag? Sex isn’t even in the top three in the hierarchy of needs.
Government-subsidized PUA is an appealing idea, though. From each according to his sex appeal, to each…bottle service.
Of course the Hannah Arendt hater supports Robert’s stupid idea.
Thanks, Eurosabra. This thread wasn’t quite creepy enough. Fuck off.
This thread reeks of entitlement, yuck.
Government-issued wingmen. WTF.