Se og Hør has appealed a 24,000 kroner court fine to the Norwegian Supreme Court following a ruling by the Borgarting Court of Appeal. The fine relates to the publication of a protected name of a victim in the criminal case against Marius Borg Høiby. The magazine’s editor-in-chief, Niklas Kokkinn-Thoresen, confirmed the legal challenge, asserting that the case requires a clarification on whether intent is a prerequisite for breaching a court-ordered reporting ban.
Why is Se og Hør taking the case to the Supreme Court?
The publisher argues that the current legal interpretation of the reporting ban is too broad. According to Niklas Kokkinn-Thoresen, the magazine maintains that the law requires proof of intent—rather than mere negligence—to justify a penalty for violating a court-mandated publication ban. By escalating the case to the Supreme Court, the media outlet seeks a definitive legal precedent regarding the burden of proof for journalists handling sensitive information during criminal proceedings.
Under Norwegian law, a reporting ban is often issued to protect the identity of victims or vulnerable parties in criminal trials. The penalty for violating such a ban can range from fines to, in extreme cases, imprisonment.
How do the fines for media outlets compare?
The legal fallout from the coverage of the Marius Borg Høiby trial has impacted multiple Norwegian media organizations. While Se og Hør was initially threatened with a rettergangsbot, that penalty was ultimately dropped. However, the individual journalist involved was fined 24,000 kroner, or 24 days in prison if the fine remains unpaid.
Other outlets faced similar, though smaller, financial penalties for their reporting practices during the same proceedings:
- Dagbladet: A journalist was issued a fine of 18,000 kroner.
- Aftenposten: A journalist was issued a fine of 18,000 kroner.
What is the status of the underlying criminal case?
The fines imposed on the media follow the conclusion of the trial against Marius Borg Høiby. On June 15, Høiby was sentenced to four years in prison. Following the verdict, both the defense and the prosecution filed appeals, meaning the legal process surrounding the core criminal charges remains ongoing. The media reporting bans were intended to maintain the integrity of these proceedings and protect the privacy of those involved.
Understanding the intersection of “referatforbud” (reporting bans) and press freedom is essential for media professionals. Always verify the specific scope of a court order before publishing details related to protected identities, as legal standards for “negligence” versus “intent” are frequently tested in appellate courts.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why was Se og Hør fined?
The magazine was fined because a journalist published the name of a victim in the Marius Borg Høiby case, which violated a court-ordered reporting ban.
What does the magazine hope to achieve with the appeal?
Se og Hør wants the Supreme Court to clarify whether “intent” is required for a journalist to be punished for violating a reporting ban, arguing that “negligence” alone should not be sufficient for a penalty.
Are other media outlets facing similar legal challenges?
Yes. Both Dagbladet and Aftenposten had journalists fined 18,000 kroner each for similar violations during the same court proceedings.
What are your thoughts on the balance between public interest reporting and the protection of victim identities? Share your views in the comments below or subscribe to our newsletter for updates on this developing legal story.
