Court case in Sweden Regarding Our Convention videos.

[Thesauron]

This Monday a court case was initiated regarding the public showing of our convention videos. The prosecution claims that during “a public gathering / public event, films that have not been approved by the State Media Council, have been shown for children who have been under 15 years of age". The films being considered are said to have an anti-htbq theme, as well as dramatic Armageddon themes.

 

https://www.metro.se/artikel/rättegång-mot-jehovas-vittnen-efter-metros-avslöjande

[Thesauron]

This Monday a court case was initiated regarding the public showing of our convention videos. The prosecution claims that during “a public gathering / public event, films that have not been approved by the State Media Council, have been shown for children who have been under 15 years of age". The films being considered are said to have an anti-htbq theme, as well as dramatic Armageddon themes.
 
https://www.metro.se/artikel/rättegång-mot-jehovas-vittnen-efter-metros-avslöjande

Another article (in Swedish).

https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/jehovas-vittnens-filmvisning-i-ratten-inte-lampligt-for-barn

According to Jehovah's Witnesses, the films are part of their religious teaching and therefore need not be reviewed by the State Media Council.

"In a democratic society, freedom of expression and freedom of religion are necessary and a sufficient basis for showing the films," defense lawyer Majeed Alnashi said during the trial.

The accused 64-year-old [who has responsible for the convention in question] told in questioning that films are shown in connection with all religious services.

"If we are not allowed to show these films without scrutiny, it will affect all Jehovah's Witnesses meetings in 320 congregations across the country," 64-year-old told the court.

The verdict is expected on April 3. The Tingsrätten (district court, crown court) is first instance.

[SUNRAY]

25 minutes ago, Thesauron said:

 

This Monday a court case was initiated regarding the public showing of our convention videos. The prosecution claims that during “a public gathering / public event, films that have not been approved by the State Media Council, have been shown for children who have been under 15 years of age". The films being considered are said to have an anti-htbq theme, as well as dramatic Armageddon themes.

 

https://www.metro.se/artikel/rättegång-mot-jehovas-vittnen-efter-metros-avslöjande

 

Be careful..as you read the article, if you click on more links about JWs in Sweeden, you will realize the author is an X-Witness.

Edited March 25, 2019 by SUNRAY
wording

[Hope]

*heavy sigh*... oh brother..

 

[Thesauron]

Be careful..as you read the article, if you click on more links about JWs in Sweeden, you will realize the author is an X-Witness.

I really don’t know if the journalist who wrote this article, Jesper Lindqvist, is gay or not, or if he’s an ex-Witness. (What gave you that idea?) As for articles you come to by clicking on any other links, I don’t know about those either, The ‘Metro’ is a respected newspaper.

[On the huh]

30 minutes ago, Thesauron said:

The films being considered are said to have an anti-htbq theme, as well as dramatic Armageddon themes

What will they do when these films became reality!  Jehovah's day is near.

[SUNRAY]

25 minutes ago, Thesauron said:

I really don’t know if the journalist who wrote this article, Jesper Lindqvist, is gay or not, or if he’s an ex-Witness. (What gave you that idea?) As for articles you come to by clicking on any other links, I don’t know about those either, The ‘Metro’ is a respected newspaper.

My apologies my brother..The link I mentioned is by a different person. as I mentioned. The person tells about how his parents are witnesses, but he is no longer one. It is harder for me to navigate while google is translating into English...sorry..

Edited March 25, 2019 by SUNRAY
wording

[Thesauron]

My apologies my brother..The link I mentioned is by a different person. as I mentioned.

Ok, well, that article is not what I linked to. You see, as with any good new media websites, they have articles on many subjects from from all different angles. The links are often automatic depending on the article subjects. Anyway, in this thread I was writing about their report on the court case that was initiated today.

[cricket246]

I guess people still just want their ears tickled... not really a shocker, more and more people want God out of the picture & the people who identify as Christian (even those in the world) are either ridiculed or eventually change to fit in with their peers... 

[Bek]

It seems that brothers in Sweden are facing a different set of challenges. The good thing is that the article admits that societal changes do not affect JWs who stay "ideologically" together. That shows how united we are in our worship of Jehovah. Our unity is noticed even by outsiders who may not like us much. 

 

It also admits that our organisation has seen an explosion in digital communication. That is also true. 

 

 

Edited March 26, 2019 by Bek

[ChocoBro]

17 hours ago, SUNRAY said:

Be careful..as you read the article, if you click on more links about JWs in Sweeden, you will realize the author is an X-Witness.

 

Hmm.... I wonder about the legal basis for this lawsuit. According to this, you're not allowed to watch ANY videos on youtube because they were never approved by any media counsel, either.

 

I know that in Germany it is illegal to sell films without a rating to minors. It is legal to show any film to minors in your care as long as this does not constitute a gross breach in your responsibility of upbringing.

 

Oh but wait, it has some anti-LGBTIQCAPGNGFNBA elements to it??? To the re-education camps with them all!!!!!

[Thesauron]

 
Hmm.... I wonder about the legal basis for this lawsuit. According to this, you're not allowed to watch ANY videos on youtube because they were never approved by any media counsel, either.
 
I know that in Germany it is illegal to sell films without a rating to minors. It is legal to show any film to minors in your care as long as this does not constitute a gross breach in your responsibility of upbringing.
 
Oh but wait, it has some anti-LGBTIQCAPGNGFNBA elements to it??? To the re-education camps with them all!!!!!

Here’s the issue: it was a public gathering, which included minors. The law does not bother about whatever films you watch privately, or show to your minor children. So, an option would be for the brothers to, instead of showing certain videos, have them released in JW Library right away. We’ll see how the GB responds to the result of this case. Of course the brothers want to follow the law as far as possible.

[Shawnster]

46 minutes ago, Thesauron said:

So, an option would be for the brothers to, instead of showing certain videos, have them released in JW Library right away.

Or another option is go old school and use a live-action demo.

[ChocoBro]

1 hour ago, Thesauron said:

Here’s the issue: it was a public gathering, which included minors.

 

Okay but does this really apply to EVERY individual multimedia presentation? Example: you walk past an apple store and there is a screen showing a video of an ad. Does that video actually have to go through a screening process / media counsel?

 

I can't imagine that every multimedia piece would necessarily have to be approved to be shown in public. I would expect that, similar to German law, certain requirements would have to be met for it to be subject to such an approval.

 

The huge joke is when I look at the filth that is shown on TV during afternoon hours.... oh well.

[Thesauron]

Or another option is go old school and use a live-action demo.

Yes, but it has some major drawbacks when it comes to uniform quality.

[Thesauron]

 
Okay but does this really apply to EVERY individual multimedia presentation? Example: you walk past an apple store and there is a screen showing a video of an ad. Does that video actually have to go through a screening process / media counsel?
 
I can't imagine that every multimedia piece would necessarily have to be approved to be shown in public. I would expect that, similar to German law, certain requirements would have to be met for it to be subject to such an approval.
 
The huge joke is when I look at the filth that is shown on TV during afternoon hours.... oh well.

This is from the Swedish Media Counsil’s website:

Movies that are intended to be shown to an audience over fifteen years need not be submitted for review to the State Media Council. The movie will then automatically receive a 15-year limit when it is publicly displayed.

According to the Law (2010: 1882), movies that meet one of the criteria below do not need to be reviewed by the State Media Council.

A movie may be shown to children under the age of 15 if it:

1) is provided in a television program covered by the Freedom of Expression Act,

2) constitute advertising for a product or service,

3) is shown at a trade fair, an exhibition or a sporting event, unless the show is a public gathering,

4) is displayed at a museum as part of the museum's normal exhibition activities and is a documentary presentation,

5) is a simple representation that is created by children or young amateurs and is shown at a film festival or other artistic or nonprofit event that is mainly aimed at children and young people, or

6) only represents a reproduction of a public opera, theater or music performance or a sporting event.

[Shawnster]

50 minutes ago, Thesauron said:

This is from the Swedish Media Counsil’s website:

Movies that are intended to be shown to an audience over fifteen years need not be submitted for review to the State Media Council. The movie will then automatically receive a 15-year limit when it is publicly displayed.

According to the Law (2010: 1882), movies that meet one of the criteria below do not need to be reviewed by the State Media Council.

A movie may be shown to children under the age of 15 if it:

1) is provided in a television program covered by the Freedom of Expression Act,

2) constitute advertising for a product or service,

3) is shown at a trade fair, an exhibition or a sporting event, unless the show is a public gathering,

4) is displayed at a museum as part of the museum's normal exhibition activities and is a documentary presentation,

5) is a simple representation that is created by children or young amateurs and is shown at a film festival or other artistic or nonprofit event that is mainly aimed at children and young people, or

6) only represents a reproduction of a public opera, theater or music performance or a sporting event.

What's the definition of movie?

 

Point 3 seems contradictory.  "is shown at a trade fair, an exhibition or a sporting event, unless the show is a public gathering."  Aren't all trade fairs, exhibitions or sporting events public gatherings?

Edited March 26, 2019 by Shawnster

[Thesauron]

What's the definition of movie?

 

Point 3 seems contradictory.  "is shown at a trade fair, an exhibition or a sporting event, unless the show is a public gathering."  Aren't all trade fairs, exhibitions or sporting events public gatherings?

No, many of them are by invitation only, or in other ways limited.

 

It will be interesting to see how the courts, and especially the Supreme Court, understands the law regarding this. And perhaps the ECHR has something to say? I know the lawyer, brother Alnashi, is quite brilliant and trustworthy. He will do his best to get this sorted.

[Shawnster]

6 minutes ago, Thesauron said:

No, many of them are by invitation only, or in other ways limited.

 

Sporting events are by invitation only?

[Thesauron]

Sporting events are by invitation only?

No, but trade fairs might be. Sporting events are usually by show of tickets, and they might sell tickets only to people over a certain age, I suppose. I think that’s the reasoning behind that exception.

[cricket246]

Isn't funny how man's laws are contradictory but Jehovah's aren't? The 2nd rule is actually what stood out to me "constitute advertising for a product or service." Sooo as long as it's a commercial for an "adult" product or has a mature theme, that's okay because it's an ad, but because our videos have morals they're a no no?....Wow 

[Thesauron]

Isn't funny how man's laws are contradictory but Jehovah's aren't? The 2nd rule is actually what stood out to me "constitute advertising for a product or service." Sooo as long as it's a commercial for an "adult" product or has a mature theme, that's okay because it's an ad, but because our videos have morals they're a no no?....Wow 

No, that’s not really the distinction. When it’s advertising, there are other control mechanisms and laws in place.

[Shawnster]

I'm still back at what is their definition of a movie?  Any video image is a movie?  Is there a time length?  

 

Then one could fight on the basis of what constitutes anti LGBT.  More and more we are seeing that simply saying no or choosing not to participate is the same as opposition.

[LoneWanderer]

How do not I wonder at all that this was published in the freely distributed newspaper Metro... They seem to be quickest in Sweden to pounce on anti-Witness sentiment. Remember seeing a couple of headlines where "horrified" ex-Witnesses presented their agenda. This particular "newspaper" is available at many bus and train stations so many people pick it up on their way to work or school. They never really go deeply analytic on any topic but re-hash news found with better coverage elsewhere. And then these so called "debate" starters. Urgh.

 

Br. Johan seems to be more in the know what happens in the Swedish-language circuit/s, since when I lived in Stockholm I didn't belong to a Swedish-language congregation too long (another story...), but from what I understood, they charged a brother for this "heinous crime" because he was the convention overseer. The media even went rampant and said Witnesses should not be rented facilities that are funded by city money/owned by the city. Don't know if this part of the reason that Swedish convention in Stockholm for the coming summer was moved to another facility (fair centre) that is owned by a private company (?).

 

Sweden is a very secular place and quite extreme in making a fuss for any minority rights, whether it be the HBTQ community or someone else. Of course Witnesses being a rather small group in Sweden (22-something-thousand?) are an easy group to attack. Yet, don't really recall seeing similar bashing of a major religion such as Muslims. True, people are horrified about people who travelled to live within ISIS, but I think they figure that it is much more difficult to attack a major group without being perceived "islamophobic" or "racist". Swedes in general are very anxious to be perceived to be anything but the force for good in the world.

 

But Swedes also it make very difficult for anyone who doesn't reach to their "lofty" standards, as is exemplified in the case where pretty much all major religious groups have the right for monetary benefits from state. But Witnesses have been systematically denied these benefits time and time again because of our "extreme" views on blood transfusion among other things. Not that we need the money, but since it is a right for a major religious group in the country... So if you don't conform to the Swedish view of "what is right", there will always be an excuse after an excuse to hinder you. Destroying all religions might (IMO, not inspired in any way, ha-ha) very well get started in Sweden considering how secular that place is.  

 

 

[Thesauron]

I'm still back at what is their definition of a movie?  Any video image is a movie?  Is there a time length?  
 
Then one could fight on the basis of what constitutes anti LGBT.  More and more we are seeing that simply saying no or choosing not to participate is the same as opposition.

Here is no time length. This is the legal definition:

“Film screening in this law refers to moving images in film or video, or playback from a database.”

Here is a dictionary definition: “A series of photographic images forming a narrative or descriptive whole.”

What constitutes anti-LGBT is something the court will decide. They will also decide if it is inappropriate for children. They will also decide how this harmonises with basic human rights, such as free speech.