Proving intent leads to a political trial?

This has never occurred to me before, in the Prosecutors attempt of proving intent it opens up to a person’s political views. Should really one person have to declare his or hers personal political views in a Court? The answer is no. Frankly, this is so un-Swedish!

Where does one draw the line? For me, I rather be conservative and not allow too much of political view to be talked about in the Court room to be on the safe side. After all, it is ones actions not belief that is on trial.

It is a very slippery slope – and totally unacceptable – to have someone’s political views on trial. I felt very uncomfortable with that Peter Sunde was pushed to declare his views, he was very strong and could resist. But what if someone else is not as strong and much more nervous? I now understand why Fredik Neij was so adamant of saying his interest was purely technological.

When it was mentioned before that this would be a political trial, I thought it was more national politics. Sweden vs US / Powerful Media companies and organisations.

6 Responses to “Proving intent leads to a political trial?”

  1. snowchyld Says:

    I think in this case _intent_ is the _intent_ to do ‘harm’ to the music industry by deliberately creating a mechanism for illegal files, which we all know, is a big pile of crazyness. The method of sharing hashes, to people, so they can share media and the freedom to do so is the fact of the matter. If all torrents were of poetry we had all written, no one would care

    YARR he said aloud
    The pirates they fight for freedom
    Prosecution fails

    Please share this with your friends, I just wrote it now, and you are free to share it with everyone, and anyone, please torrent this =D

  2. Grungi Ankhfire Says:

    Couldn’t agree more. A political opinion is just that, an opinion. And as far as I know, you’re free to have any opinion on any matter. Being against a law doesn’t imply you’re actively trying to break or circumvent it. And having to state your opinions like that is unacceptable when, as you said, you’re judged for what you’ve done, not what you think.

    Keep up the good work covering this trial, it’s really important and means a lot!

  3. jupp0r Says:

    I’m not sure how court cases are handled in Sweden, but I think the judges should question the relevance of most things the P asks. I mean they did not really try to prove that TPB did something illegal…

    Dunno if political opinions should be discussed when there is relevance to the trial and politics could be motivation.

  4. tse7en Says:

    Yes, too many questions today by p were irrelevant. Thats obvious because they are loosing the case. Liked the way Brokep handled himself to all questions.

    Thanks for translating. I heard u wont be doing next week. 🙁 Thats understandable though.
    Keep going! Good luck!

  5. Don’t Panic » Blog Archive » Spectrial, day 5 - Jeroen Baert / Forceflow’s blog Says:

    […] to do with his views. As local action hero Sofia (she provides live twitter translations every day) writes on her blog: This has never occurred to me before, in the Prosecutors attempt of proving intent it […]

  6. Sofia Says:

    I was also bothered by that the fact that the Judge nor the defense lawyer protested against. This makes me think that this is accepted within the Court environment. This is certainly not a reflection from me as part of the public.

    chis, I agree that judgment of a persons appearance and opinions are unavoidable but flagrant asking about is a Court is disturbing.

    In general listening to the questions from the Prosecutor and the plaintiff’s lawyers – what on earth are the charges? Unclear to say the least.