Slashdot Mirror


Judge Who Ordered Pirate Bay Censorship Found To Be Corrupt

TheGift73 writes "TorrentFreak reports that 'This week yet another court order was handed down in Europe with the aim of censoring The Pirate Bay. The ruling forbids the Dutch Pirate Party from not only running a direct proxy, but also telling people how to circumvent an earlier court ordered blockade. However, according to Pirate Party founder Rick Falkvinge, the judge in the case has a history of corruption relating to another file-sharing case he presided over in the Netherlands. The Court of The Hague in the Netherlands has been particularly busy this work with Pirate Bay-related cases.' Falkvinge wrote, '... not only was the plaintiff and judge personally and closely acquainted, the plaintiff in a controversial copyright monopoly case was running a commercial anti-piracy outfit together with the judge in the case. Money was involved. Commercial interest was involved. The judge was, as it appears from this brochure for the quite expensive course, getting money. Shortly after the case. In a directly related matter together with the plaintiff. That makes the judge not only corrupt, but textbook corrupt.'"

2 of 104 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Why? by longk · · Score: 5, Informative

    The argument seems to be that "we prefer knowledgable judges over unknowledgeable ones and that being 'involved' in the industry is simply the best way to become and/or stay knowledgable". BS, IMHO.

  2. Re:Why? by xelah · · Score: 5, Informative

    Because, of course, he hasn't been found corrupt. Even if the summary were taken at face value it still wouldn't be corruption...'having a financial interest in the outcome', although clearly not acceptable for a judge in a case, is not the same as 'accepting an offer of money in exchange for not carrying out your duties properly'. And, as one of the links says, '“It’s not just any course they do together, it’s part of the Dutch bar association’s official training program for lawyers.”'. Corruption? Really? The only question the article appears to raise is the level of personal connection between plaintiff and judge, and even then it's rabid enough to be hard to take seriously.