A big thank you from the front line in the war for free speech

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

To all the kind and generous readers who have donated to the appeal for Naomi Seibt, I should like to say how very grateful she for your support. Thanks to your contributions to her Patreon account, she now has $1800 a month in income, and skeptics everywhere are spreading the word. Stefan Molyneux, who has interviewed Naomi in the past, has just retweeted it, and from there it has been retweeted almost 1000 times. Latest news is that the State Media Authority in North-Rhine Westphalia has threatened Naomi with imprisonment.

Naomi, who will be writing a personal thank-you to her numerous generous donors as soon as she has time, will be devoting your donations to continuing her gallant fight not only for freedom of speech about the climate question but also for freedom from jail.

It is not just about the money, life-saving though it is. Naomi felt very much alone when she realized that the power, the might and the wealth of the State were – for purely political reasons – being aimed directly at her. The warmth of your support has been a very great comfort to her at this difficult time.

She was not happy to receive a letter from the State Media Authority in North Rhine Westphalia, where she lives, telling her that three of her YouTube videos on the climate question were against the law because she had expressed views that were not, in the Authority’s opinion, “climate-friendly”, and because she had mentioned the Heartland Institute in those videos.

Such non-“climate-friendly” mentions of Heartland, the letter said, constituted unlawful product placement.

At the time when that first letter arrived, Naomi was not well. A letter went to the Authority on her behalf, asking for more time so that she could respond properly in due course. The Authority did not give her more time. It went right ahead and issued an “administrative act”, a quasi-judicial decision against her. The act gave her just three choices:

  1. Take down two of the three videos the Authority had originally complained of; or
  2. Pay the Authority 1000 euros plus 200 euros costs for each of the two videos (total $2640 at today’s exchange rate); or
  3. Go to prison for up to 14 days in respect of each video: total up to 28 days.

Naomi made the first of the three videos five months before she even knew the Heartland Institute existed. Unsurprisingly, therefore, that video – video 1 – did not mention Heartland at all. The Authority has now backed off and accepted that video 1 could not by any stretch of the most insanely malevolent bureaucratic imagination constitute product placement for the Heartland Institute. That leaves videos 2 and 3.

In video 2, just a couple of minutes long, Naomi announced to her 88,000 YouTube followers that she was now a member of the Heartland Institute, and said that she would be working with it to take a rational and non-alarmist approach to the climate question. All she was doing was telling the truth. But in her homeland it seems it is now again unlawful to tell the truth if the State does not like the truth. That should worry all of us.

In law, that mention of Heartland does not constitute unlawful product placement because Naomi stated her connection with Heartland explicitly, right at the beginning of video 2. For that was the whole point of the video: to tell her followers, openly and honestly, that she was now with the Institute. In civilized jurisdictions, for good reason, it is only undeclared product placement that is unlawful.

In any event, the Authority says such mentions are only illegal if in the same video one advocates policy prescriptions. But the 280 words of video 2 contain no policy recommendations at all.

Video 3 did not mention Heartland even once. It was a video of a speech Naomi had given to a German audience. The event had been arranged long before I had introduced her to the Heartland Institute. Heartland had absolutely nothing to do with it, and it had absolutely nothing to do with Heartland. It beats me how anyone could imagine for a single instant that video 3 could possibly constitute product placement.

Yet the Authority – inferentially anxious to find fault with more than just one short and harmless video – persists in pursuing Naomi for video 3 as well as for video 2, even though I have written to it twice directly and once via the German Ambassador in London to warn it to cease and desist.

On the facts, no reasonable, independent and impartial public authority exercising a quasi-judicial function could possibly regard any of videos 1-3 as constituting unlawful product placement.

Remarkably, the Authority manifests its prejudice in this affair by using the words “climate-friendly” to describe its own viewpoint on the climate question, not only in its initial letter but also, far more seriously and far more culpably, in its quasi-judicial administrative act.

So to the law. The legislation under which the Authority purports to silence, fine or imprison Naomi is a relatively recent State law limiting freedom of speech in North Rhine Westphalia, taken together with a nationwide interstate treaty on control of free speech in the broadcast media.

However, these laws are themselves unlawful because they are directly, materially and substantially incompatible with Articles 9 (freedom of thought and conscience), 10 (freedom of expression, including “freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority”), 11 (freedom of association) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination on grounds including “political or other opinion”) of the European Human Rights Convention.

The Convention, being an international treaty, takes precedence over mere national or State law. There are some limited exceptions to the rights granted by Articles 9-11 and 14, but none of the listed exceptions applies here.

Worse, the State Media Authority’s administrative act issued to Naomi’s detriment constitutes a grave, material and irremediable breach of Article 6 (right to a fair trial). The law of Germany, derived from Roman and then United Kingdom law in this respect, acknowledges two principles of natural justice: nemo sit iudex in causa propria (you can’t be the judge in a case to which you are a party) and audiatur et altera pars (both sides must be fully and fairly heard).

No self-judgment: The Authority is acting as the judge, jury and executioner in a case to which it is a party, and that is simply not allowed. Under Article 6 of the Convention, any entity exercising a quasi-judicial function must be, and be seen to be, “independent and impartial”.

Furthermore, a public authority presuming or purporting to exercise a quasi-judicial function must not, in anything it says or does or fails to say or do, give the least impression of partisanship. In this context, the Authority’s imprudent use of the term “climate-friendly” to characterize its own viewpoint on the climate question will come back to haunt it. For that phrase is laden with prejudice. The European Human Rights Court will not like it at all.

Hear both sides: When Naomi asked for more time to reply substantively to the Authority’s original letter, the Authority went ahead and issued its administrative act regardless, without hearing her side of the case.

This particular flagrant breach of the Convention is irremediable, for an extensive body of case-law precedents in the European Human Rights Court makes clear that both sides must be fully and fairly heard at every stage in the proceedings. If at any stage my right to be heard is denied to Naomi, as the Authority has denied it to her, the entire proceedings are tainted and the Authority must lose.

The Authority has thus lost the case from the outset. Nothing it now does can remedy that fatal breach of the most strictly-enforced of all the Convention’s provisions.

Since the Authority has flouted both principles of natural justice embodied in the laws of Germany and of Europe, its actions are unlawful in se, wherefore its purported “administrative act” is, as Pope Innocent X trenchantly said of the Treaty of Westphalia, “Null, void, invalid, iniquitous, unjust, damnable, reprobate, vapid, inane and empty of meaning for all time”. His Holiness’ vocabulary was almost as extensive as mine.

The Authority is wrong in fact, for it is manifest that neither of the two videos it complains of constitutes unlawful product placement. And it is wrong in law, for it has acted contrary to natural justice by judging itself, by expressing open prejudice in the terms of its judgment and by failing to allow Naomi time to respond substantively before it judged her.

Its crude attempt at silencing the freedom of thought, of conscience, of expression and of association of a 19-year-old YouTuber against whom it has chosen to discriminate on the stated ground that she is not, in its words, “climate-friendly” is now justifiably attracting worldwide condemnation.

As a result of the appeal, Naomi not only has enough money to keep body and soul together, but individual donors have come forward so that she can engage a senior administrative lawyer to fight her corner in the Verwaltungsgericht (the State administrative court).

Even the Left-leaning media hacks who had previously given Naomi a hard time for daring to question the climate-Communist Party Line are now increasingly on her side. They are shocked at the Authority’s heavy-handedness.

The Authority, now visibly desperate, has issued an imprudent and mendacious press statement falsely stating that it had given Naomi a fair chance to put her side of the case. The courts will not like that.

An appeal against the Authority’s kangaroo-court misconduct has been lodged. In due course a proper judge will hear not only the Authority’s side of the case but Naomi’s as well – the case that the Authority scandalously refused to hear before it issued its quasi-judicial administrative act.

One question the judge will be asked to rule upon is whether the Authority must answer Naomi’s request to be told which of its “climate-friendly” fellow-believers told it about her videos.

On her behalf, a copy of an email from a third party to the Authority about Naomi’s videos was requested and provided, but the Authority redacted the name of the sender without having declared the redaction. That failure to declare that a document furnished in court proceedings had been altered from its original state is a serious breach of process. The Authority has thus put itself in contempt of court. The offense is imprisonable.

The question arises whether the Authority and its “climate-friendly” clerks, in demanding money from Naomi with menaces even though it knows perfectly well – for it has been plainly, fairly and repeatedly told – that it has no legitimate grounds whatsoever to make those demands, has committed the serious, imprisonable criminal offences of blackmail, fraud and misfeasance in a public office.

I shall be referring the case papers to the German Ambassador with a formal complaint to be forwarded to the police and investigating authorities in Münster, where Naomi lives, and in Berlin.

The international news media are already planning to be present in the Verwaltungsgericht. This will be a battle royal for freedom of speech against the over-mighty State. Thanks to your generosity, the State will crash and burn, and freedom of speech will win. It will not be Naomi that goes to jail. Thank you all again. Let freedom ring!

  • Naomi and I are now making a series of short videos on climate matters. The first video is posted at Naomi’s YouTube channel. Enjoy! Like! Subscribe! Link! Retweet!

135 thoughts on “A big thank you from the front line in the war for free speech

    • The European approach to free speech is incredibly archaic and downright repugnant. Short of the proverbial cry of fire in a crowded theater, we Americans figured out long ago that any attempt by government to regulate speech as the Germans are attempting invariably gives rise to the tyrannical thought police. When free speech is abridged as in Naomi’s case, no German is truly free.

      Well done Lord Monckton–I am a proud contibutor. And if Naomi does not prevail in the German courts (sadly a distinct possibilty although your legal analysis is essentially correct), having litigated several cases against international organisations under Art 6 of the ECHR, I will happily join her ECHR legal team pro bono publico.

  1. Where the German authoritarians fail I am sure Comrade Susan Wojcicki will step up. She’s already banished Michael Moore’s inconvenient documentary.

    • They don’t call themselves the Third Reich anymore but the basic attitude and practice seems to be alive and intact.

  2. What could be more climate friendly than the truth that human emissions are inconsequential to the climate? It is indeed good news that we can’t control the climate so we can quit worrying about it and focus on protecting ourselves from adverse weather events instead.

  3. “Hear both sides:”

    Let’s do that. Still no sighting of what those letters actually said. Nor a link to the NRW press release.

    Here is Reuters fact check on the issue:

    “VERDICT
    False. Naomi Seibt was not banned from social media platforms. Regional German telecommunication regulators did not fine Seibt, but requested she delete two YouTube videos for violating German law. “

    They quote:
    “The Landesanstalt für Medien NRW confirmed to Reuters via email that it did not issue a fine to Seibt:

    “Ms. Seibt was requested to delete two YouTube videos because they violate German law. The basis of our decision is the prohibition of third party influence on the editorial content in audiovisual media according to articles 7 para. 7 sentence 1 in connection with 58 para. 3 sentence 1 of the Interstate Broadcasting Treaty (Rundfunkstaatsvertrag-RStV).

    “Ms. Seibt was heard on the facts of the case. Her statement was not able to invalidate the accusation of illegal thematic placement (in German „Themenplatzierung”). Unlike in America, in Germany it is prohibited by law to provide media content, if a third party has exerted influence on it and if the cooperation is based on a compensation. Unlike in America, in Germany Freedom of speech is not touched by this ban.” “

    • Mr Stokes, a churlish, vexatious, paid troll for climate extremism, is as usual uncritical in repeating hard-Left so-called “fact-checking” without actually reading the head posting. So let us – as we have to do so very, very often – put him firmly straight as to the facts.

      Fact: Contrary to what Mr Stokes quotes from his fellow hard-left scribblers, the head posting does not say Naomi Seibt was banned from social media platforms. It says that she was ordered to take down two videos from YouTube.

      Fact: Contrary to what Mr Stokes quotes from Reuters, a source that on climate matters is almost as unreliable as Stokes himself, the State Media Authority, in its administrative act, told Naomi Seibt that if she did not take down the two videos she would either have to pay a fine of 1000 euros for each video plus 200 euros costs for each video or go to prison for up to 14 days in respect of each video.

      Fact: Contrary to what the unreliable Mr Stokes uncritically quotes from the unreliable Reuters account of what the unreliable State Media Authority had to say, Naomi Seibt was not influenced by third parties in her content. The State Media Authority was forced to abandon its complaint about the first of three videos about which it had originally complained, because the video had been made and posted up five clear months before I had introduced Naomi Seibt to the Heartland Institute, the “third party” of which the State Media Authority complains. As to the second video, Naomi makes it plain right from the start that she is now a member of the Heartland Institute. In civilized jurisdictions, provided that any connection between the broadcaster and the third party is made open and explicit, as it was in Naomi’s second video, no offense is committed. Besides, the State Media Authority has told Naomi, in writing, that a video only falls foul of the “thematic placement” law if it advocates policy prescriptions. But the 280 words of Naomi’s second video advocate no policy prescriptions. As for the third video, it was of a speech made by Naomi in Germany. The speech had nothing to do with the Heartland Institute, and the Heartland Institute had nothing to do with the speech. The speech did not even mention the Heartland Institute.

      Fact: Contrary to Mr Stokes’ characteristically uncritical regurgitation of the State Media Authority’s press release, Naomi Seibt was not heard on the facts of the case. As the head posting explains – if he will get his kindergarten mistress to read it to him – on Naomi’s behalf a request for more time to reply was submitted because she was seriously ill in hospital, but the Authority failed to hear her side of the case and sailed ahead and issued its quasi-judicial “administrative act” regardless, and then issued its mendacious press statement to the effect that it had heard her side of the case when, in the facts, it had not. The Authority’s misconduct is a flagrant breach of the obligation to hear both sides.

      Fact: The Heartland Institute did not exercise influence over any of the three videos. Therefore, none of them was illegal.

      Fact: The European Human Rights Convention guarantees the right of freedom of expression, and public authorities are expressly debarred by the terms of the Convention from interfering therewith. There are limited exceptions to that general right, but the exception pleaded by the State Media Authority is not one of them.

      Fact: Naomi Seibt is under no obligation to disclose case papers to Mr Stokes. She chooses not to do so. Get over it.

      One understands that Mr Stokes is sour at the success of the appeal for Naomi Seibt, but even by his shoddy standards this latest comment by him strikes a new low. He should be – but won’t be – thoroughly ashamed of himself.

      For once, his fellow climate Communists, usually so good at process, have screwed up. And no amount of mendacious pseudo-fact-checking by the climate Communists at Reuters will succeed in concealing the fact that the “climate-friendly” State Media Authority has acted corruptly. Naomi Seibt is going to win this one, and win big.

      • “Contrary to what Mr Stokes quotes from Reuters, a source that on climate matters is almost as unreliable as Stokes himself, the State Media Authority, in its administrative act, told Naomi Seibt that if she did not take down the two videos she would either have to pay a fine of 1000 euros for each video plus 200 euros costs for each video or go to prison for up to 14 days in respect of each video.”

        You have never shown us the letters, after now four posts in a week on the matter. Why can’t we see them? Reuters quotes NRW saying your account of them isn’t true.

        • Mr Stokes is not giving his paymasters good value for money. If he were to get his kindergarten mistress to read my comment in reply to his fatuous regurgitation of the deeply prejudiced and woefully inaccurate Reuters piece about the case, he would see that I have already answered his whine about not having been shown the State Media Authority’s letters. The letters are not my property and I am not at liberty to release them. However, the head posting fairly reflects the penalty inflicted by the Authority in its quasi-judicial “administrative act”: take down the two videos complained of, or pay fines and costs totaling 2400 euros, or go to prison for 28 days.

          • But you should be at liberty to make your point without resorting to disgusting ad hominems like “kindergarten mistress” and constant shill accusations, though.

          • “Trevor May 27, 2020 at 1:50 am”

            I agree! Monckton of Brenchley *IS* better than that…

          • Indeed, there’s no need to bring in Nick’s kindergarten mistress into this, the poor lady is already overworked enough as it is by her wayward charge.

          • Reading through the published fact-checks, from reputable news organisations, it would appear that the State Media Authority followed German law. People from other countries may not like that law, but that’s the way it is.
            But indeed, all of this is can be clarified: instead of all the bluster, Seibt (and maybe Monckton) can simply publish the letters. That would immediately kill off all the doubts that people like me have.
            Why isn’t it happening? Could it be that (shock, horror) they don’t support her position?

          • Reading through the published fact-checks, from reputable news organisations

            Bob, you forgot to include the sarc tag.

          • Indeed, there’s no need to bring in Nick’s kindergarten mistress into this . . .

            rofl!

          • “he would see that I have already answered his whine about not having been shown the State Media Authority’s letters. The letters are not my property and I am not at liberty to release them.”

            I seem to recall that you told that to Nick some time ago, the first time he requested a copy. Maybe he forgot, and that’s why he continues to make this request.

            I notice he didn’t rebut any of your points. He just changed the subject to asking for documents.

          • Nick didn’t forget, he only remembers what he wants to remember, and will ignore anything that doesn’t fit his preconceive view of things.

        • No Reuters NRW simply says she wasn’t fined it says nothing on demands made. As to the issue of should the letters be displayed well that is a matter for who they were addressed at … you could always ask the NRW yourself on that matter or ask Reuters to follow up if you really want to know.

          • He doesn’t. He never does. He just looks for anything with which to attack. That’s what trolls like him do.

        • Nick Stokes

          Yet another Bollock dropped by you Nick.

          I can’t recall a time when you withdrew from a debate with good grace.

          • He reminds me of a sparring partner who doesn’t even realize how many times he’s been tagged.

        • Do you know of a single case where someone in Germany has made a Youtube video and mentioned their membership of an organisation and has been accused of illegal advertising as a result?

          Do you really think the NRW would have acted in the same way if she had said she was a member of Green Peace or Friends of the Earth?

          Do you think that the views of Naomi Seibt should be censored?

          Would you be happy if people tried to prevent activists such as Greta Thunberg from speaking about the climate?

        • Lawless leftists like Stokes are doing….what exactly by commenting here? He has no power of persuasion. If persuasion is his intent, he fails. The science never supports his positions. Leftist argument tactics are wasted here.

          I suspect McIntyre hired him to post leftist diatribe here to make reading comments more entertaining.

      • Has there ever been a post where Nick actually responded to what others have said, rather than his weird re-interpretations of what he wanted others to have said?

    • Yes and the Reuters fact check needs to be fact checked because it is wrong as well by using obfuscation. The truth is as always somewhere between the two extremes of those pushing extreme agendas.

      I really loved the part where they confirm they didn’t fine her but didn’t ask if there was a demand that if not met would incur a fine … dare I say it Nick they pulled a Stokes Deflection.

      • The truth is NOT always “between the two extreme positions”. Leftists begin public interactions with lies (often even weather reports)…the response from the right drags some truth into the discussion…the leftist doubles down with obfuscation, misdirection, and more lies.
        They can say anything crazy thing they want and get it reported because the Press are also leftist liars.

        • “They can say anything crazy thing they want and get it reported because the Press are also leftist liars.”

          I think you summed it up nicely, Doc! 🙂

    • Oh I see MR M answered in the meantime and so far I think all everyone actually agrees on was she wasn’t actually fined .. perhaps Nick would like to push Reuters to be more specific was she threatened with a fine.

      • “so far I think all everyone actually agrees on was she wasn’t actually fined”
        No. The first Monckton post in this series started out:

        “Without a hearing, German officials have fined her and demanded costs on the ground that in her devastatingly effective videos she has dared to question the Party Line about what officialdom profiteers by presenting as “dangerous” manmade global warming.

        As a result of this arbitrary and capricious prosecution and conviction without trial, Naomi has had her earnings cut off. “

        “they pulled a Stokes Deflection”
        No, it’s a Monckton deflection. Any uncertainty about this could be resolved by posting the letters so we could see for ourselves what they really said.

        • Nick that is no different to how you write and if it annoys you then stop the same behaviour and perhaps get some sense of how interacting with you is. I will agree with you it isn’t how I would have written all that. In less inflammatory words it says Naomi got a legal letter of demand.

          Mr M answered answered below what was bleeding obvious to anyone that wasn’t unhinged that the decision to show the letter or not was not up to him. If it is such an issue to you ask Naomi or the State Media they are the parties who can give permission.

          Anyhow I have some Fire Royal Commission hearing footage to catch up on. It was rather good comedy yesterday watching the claim that the smoke killed 445 people and “$2 billion in health costs”, well go up in smoke. The funny answer they gave reminds me of your response, it’s up to others to invalidate the model they assume it’s correct.

          • ” the decision to show the letter or not was not up to him”

            He is pitching for money, based on his rendition of the letter. That has been challenged, by Reuters and NRW. If he can’t back up his claims of what the letter said, he shouldn’t be asking people for money.

            I’m sure privacy laws would not allow NRW to give the letter to such as I.

          • Again you persist in a blatant lie .. you are far worse than him.

            So we are clear existence of a letter of demand is not challenged, by Reuters and NRW they only commented on a fine being issued. That is the only fact we know.

          • “Again you persist in a blatant lie”
            What is that lie?

            It’s clear that the Authority wrote to Naomi pointing out that was in breach of some law, and asking that she take down the videos. Whether that was made with threat of legal action is unclear, or whether that authority even could prosecute her. That is what seeing the letters would resolve.

          • Mr Stokes, who continues to troll on behalf of his paymasters, should retire from the field with a good grace, though that is not his way. He now in effect accuses me – on no evidence – of having fraudulently misrepresented the State Media Authority’s administrative act by saying that it ordered Frau Seibt to take down two videos on pain of substantial fines and costs or imprisonment in default. If he really thinks I have made this up, let him direct a complaint to the appropriate criminal authority, which in Britain is Action Fraud.

            He and his paymasters are, of course, furious at the international storm of condemnation that the news of the State Media Authority’s brutish and arguably criminal mistreatment of Naomi Seibt has aroused. But even trolls like him serve a useful purpose: several donors have commented that they have contributed precisely because they are determined to punish the trolls for their shoddy conduct.

            If Mr Stokes is as wilfully ignorant of the law as he is of physics and mathematics, then no doubt he will not understand what the words “legal privilege” mean in connection with correspondence in a court case. I am not at liberty to release the case papers, so it is time he stopped whining about being allowed to see them. In the head posting, I have given a detailed and accurate account of the main points.

            In due course – probably next year, for the courts grind exceeding slow – the case papers will be lodged for all to see at the court registry once the case has been heard. Mr Stokes can satisfy his artificial curiosity then.

            He should really learn not to be so petty. He convinces few but himself.

          • If he did, he’s be a lot quieter as being petty is all Nick ever brings to the table it seems

        • Nick Stokes said:
          “they pulled a Stokes Deflection”
          No, it’s a Monckton deflection.

          Did you really just pull the childhood crack: “I know you are, but what am I?”

      • In response to LdB, Mr Stokes is indeed being characteristically evasive. The head posting states the position exactly: the State Media Authority – whose very existence is probably incompatible with the free-expression provisions of the European human Rights Convention – has told Naomi Seibt that she must either take two videos down or pay 1000 euros fine plus 200 euros costs for each video, total 2400 euros, or go to prison for up to 28 days.

        It should be blindingly obvious to all but a climate Communist that such massive fines would be grossly disproportionate even if Naomi had done anything wrong, which she hasn’t.

        • “Mr Stokes is indeed being characteristically evasive”
          No, the evasiveness and dodging is in all your excuses for not simply showing the letters on which this appeal for money is based. Now we are told:
          “has told Naomi Seibt that she must either take two videos down or pay 1000 euros fine plus 200 euros costs for each video, total 2400 euros, or go to prison for up to 28 days”

          But in the first post headed “Naomi Seibt, the anti-Greta, needs your financial support now”, it said explicitly:
          “Without a hearing, German officials have fined her

          she has been found guilty of the alleged offence of exercising her right of free speech

          the Authority demanded a fine of about $400”

          Now we are told
          ” she must either take two videos down or pay 1000 euros fine plus 200 euros costs for each video”

          Even the amount of the alleged fine keeps varying. But the Authority says that it has not imposed a fine. So what does the letter really say?

    • Dear Mr. Stokes,

      1. Naomi has not placed her videos in Germany (YouTube is very clearly NOT German).

      2. The authority must circumstantiate that Naomi has received money from Hertland for hervVideos, and these videos have ben produced on behalf/by order of Heartland.

      3. Here is the mission definition of the authority:

      “Landesanstalt für Medien NRW – Landesanstalt für Medien NRW
      Die Landesanstalt für Medien NRW ist die Aufsichtsbehörde des privaten Rundfunks in NRW. Ihre Aufgaben umfassen die Sicherung von Meinungsfreiheit und -vielfalt, die Zulassung von privaten Rundfunkanbietern, die Förderung von Medienkompetenz und Bürgermedien, die Förderung neuer Technologien und der Digitalisierung und die Förderung von Vielfalt und Partizipation im Bereich des loalen und regionalen Journalismus.”

      No comment…

      4. It turned out, that a leftist journalist has denounced Naomi, and the authority didn’t want to name the denunciator. Tja, the approach is rather very well known from the era of the Nazis and Bolsheviks.

      5. It is not known, that there would be a law or Regulation in place in Germany, that only the support of the climate- and CO2-hysterie would be allowed.

      6. What about the propaganda for example on behalft of Greenpace in Germany? Greenpace is very clearly a foreign (not German) organization, and the Greenpace activists are rather well paid.

      It seems that in this case something is very wrong and definitely not on Naomi’s part.

      • Facts never affect Nick Stoke’s opinions, even when he defends the indefensible.
        Shows how nasty the cornered warmists are.

      • I am not debating the rights and wrongs of the German Law or its application. Just the simple factual issue of whether she has in fact been fined. The letters would tell us.

        • It’s pathetic than even while picking irrelevant nits with gusto, Nick gets even the most basic issues incorrect. Christopher claims that the authority threatened to fine her if she did not take the videos down, not that she had been fined.

          • “Christopher claims that the authority threatened to fine her if she did not take the videos down, not that she had been fined.”

            It varies. The original fund-raising post was quite explicit:

            “Without a hearing, German officials have fined her and demanded costs on the ground that in her devastatingly effective videos she has dared to question the Party Line about what officialdom profiteers by presenting as “dangerous” manmade global warming.

            As a result of this arbitrary and capricious prosecution and conviction without trial, Naomi has had her earnings cut off.”

            That is why only the letters can tell us what they really said.

        • Mr. Stokes,

          Your absurd vigour has convinced me that the shadows you tilt with must have some great worth. I have donated to the maidens cause.

          • Most grateful to Mr Parisot for his generosity. Mr Stokes and suchlike churlish trolls are driving many, many others to make donations to Naomi Seibt, because they are so tired of the pettiness and mendacity of the trolls.

        • As always, Nick prefers to argue about how many angels are dancing on pin heads, rather than deal with the actual facts.

          She was informed that she would be fined if she didn’t take down the posts.
          So technically, Nick is correct, there have been no actual fines given out.
          However the difference only matters to one (like Nick) who is interested in distracting from the meat of the case.l

    • Nick Stokes May 26, 2020 at 6:56 pm

      Nit-pickers will pick nits.

      It’s a shame that this is all that this particular nit-picker ever does. Irrelevant is as irrelevant does!

    • “Ms. Seibt was heard on the facts of the case.”

      Given the back-tracking, whereby only 2 videos were to be removed, not all of the original 3, it would appear to be true that Ms Seibt was heard on the facts to some extent, through written representations or represented by counsel. It would appear that she was not present though, being in hospital. So she was not able to give oral evidence as a witness of the facts. She was therefore not heard fully.

      “in Germany it is prohibited by law to provide media content, if a third party has exerted influence on it and if the cooperation is based on a compensation.”

      Does that mean that German TV does not interrupt programmes with commercial breaks, because those who get paid to make adverts for firms with products to sell would be breaking the law if they plied their trade in Germany, as would the TV stations if they aired the adverts? If that isn’t the implication of the plain meaning of the short passage I have quoted then what on earth does it mean?

    • Really Nick Stokes? Why do you post on this site if you support a 19 year old being threatened in order to prevent her from expressing her views and debating climate change? What are you afraid of?

      You seem to be able to post on here virtually 24 hours a day, yet, you want to prevent others from debating? Who is paying you?

      There are plenty of alarmist climate propaganda sites you can go on if you don’t believe others should be allowed to express their views.

      Are you actually arguing that this young lady has not been threatened in order to stop her expressing views that others disagree with? Do you demand to see the private papers of every court case or every threatening letter others receive?

  4. It’s only a matter of time before the UTube marginalizes her videos or she gets cancelled. Silicon Valley will not tolerate dissent…see current COVID crisis.

  5. The fact that there is a “State Media Authority” is an indictment in itself. Looking at you Nick. All the signs of Totalitarianism, whether Nazi or Communist or ? Germany has not gotten rid of it’s East German half apparently.

    • Angela Merkel was educated at Karl Marx University,
      As a youth she was a member of the FDJ, the official communist youth movement sponsored by the ruling Marxist–Leninist Socialist Unity Party of Germany.
      Verbum Sap.

  6. I am not very familiar with much of German history, especially the century or so preceding WWII, but it seems to me that the attitude and practice discussed here strongly represents that which led up to the creation of East Germany.

  7. I suspect we all feared it would come to this. Anyone who thought the Left were losing the climate ‘debate’ should remember that all the power in society rests with those who hold a monopoly on the use of force – that is, the state.

  8. Monkton has a mind like a razor, an knows how to use it. The eco-nazis havent got a chance!

  9. Here is a Google Translate version of the Article which Naomi is accused of contravening. No guarantees on the accuracy of translation.

    Article 7 para. 7 of the Interstate Broadcasting Treaty (Rundfunkstaatsvertrag-RStV).

    “Surreptitious advertising, product and topic placement and corresponding practices are not permitted. If exceptions are permitted in sections 15 and 44, product placement must meet the following requirements:
    1. The editorial responsibility and independence regarding content and broadcasting space must remain unaffected,
    2. the placement of the product must not directly prompt the purchase, rental or lease of goods or services, in particular not by means of special sales-promoting references to these goods or services, and
    3. the product must not be emphasized too strongly; this also applies to low-value goods made available free of charge.
    A product placement must be clearly indicated. It must be appropriately identified at the beginning and end of a program and when it continues after an advertising break or on the radio by means of an equivalent notice. The labeling requirement does not apply to programs that have not been produced or commissioned by the organizer itself or by a company affiliated with the organizer, unless it can be determined with reasonable effort whether product placement is included; this should be pointed out. The state broadcasting corporations, which are grouped together in the ARD, the ZDF and the state media outlets establish uniform labeling.”

    • Thanks for the translation.
      Q. If a journalist interview an athlete about his/her performance and the athlete is wearing a branded shirt, has the journalist broken the law?

      • Not a problem, as I read the rules.

        But an intelligent journalist would not ask his interviewee whether the athlete thought that his new branded equipment had made a big difference to his game, especially if the journalist could not explain the $5000 that had recently appeared in his bank account.

  10. It was thought and widely claimed at one time that Greta Thunberg was a puppet of the AGW movement with others pulling her strings. It now seems that this is not the case and her views misguided and baseless as they are, are her own . She is of course used by the AGW machine who wheel her from forum to forum knowing that she wil trot out the familiar Cassandra – Cant.
    Christopher. you must be very wary of being accused of being Naomi’s puppetmaster. I know that Naomi is her own person and rather eloquent and well researched in her opinions . On he first joint video you have a nice guy nasty guy approach but if I did not know of Naiomi from before I might think that you were using her as the (Patently more acceptable ) face of the Monkton message
    I am ure the thought has already occured to you and as you already know Big Green fights dirty you will be on your guard

    You weren’t Maggie’s puppemaster were You? 😉

    • In response to Mr Gray, in the video series Naomi will introduce each topic, she will then invite me to answer her questions about it, and she will then sum up. It’s very straightforward. And I can assure you that Naomi has a mind of her own and would not for an instant allow me to manipulate her: nor would I wish to do so.

      Margaret Thatcher, like Naomi Seibt, had a mind of her own, and a very good one. I was a small cog in her machine, giving her advice on a wide range of topics (for she had only six Special Advisers, so each of us had to provide advice on many things).

    • Hmm regarding Ms Thunberg. I am somewhat confused, was there any doubt that the juvenile crap she spouts was her own? But as for being influenced – hmm an all expenses paid voyage on a racing yacht across the Atlantic – I wonder how much that costs out at? And how about the various flights and trips? Who pays the piper calls the tune is a proverb that stands the test of time.

  11. The Media Authority of North Rhine-Westphalia stands up for the freedom of speech and media plurality. The organisation is separate from the state and financially independent. It is a trustworthy authority whose actions are free of economic or political party interests.

    https://www.medienanstalt-nrw.de/about-us/topics/journalism-lab.html

    As what sounds like a QUANGO, do they even have the right to fine or imprison fellow citizens?

    • 3×2,

      A very important question: YouTube is definitely NOT a German media, and could have a German authority any control right/authority over a non-German media (especially over a US media)?

      Note: The NRW Media Authority is defined in German as an “Aufsichtsbehörde”. The other basic question: Who does finance this “Behörde” (who pays the bill….)? In our case land NRW (state NRW). Or who is in charge of appointing the leader of this authority? Maybe the “street” or “independent aliens”?

        • kribaez,

          Thank you very much for the info. Yes, the classical situation: “Set the fox to watch the geese”. The leader (director) was the main lobbyst of the RTL-Group (RTL has rather close and strong ties to the Greens and “progressive liberals”) at the German government. He was eventually appointed in 2016 by the socialist-green government in the state (Land) NRW. His term lasts 6 years long. His predecessor was “motivated” to leave, because he was a member of the German Party CDU. It would be interesting to know about the party membership of the current director of the Media Authority NRW.

  12. Lord Monckton
    Is that the same European Human Rights Court that the UK plans to remove itself from playing any further part in after Brexit?

    • No it is not. It is unrelated to the EU and has far more members including Russia. It has its roots in the European Human Rights treaty.

    • To my knowledge the UK has no plans to withdraw from membership of the European Convention on Human Rights and so continues to be subject to and to abide by rulings of the Europeans Court of Human Rights.

      Do not confuse the ECtHR with the Court of Justice of the European Union which has abrogated to itself certain matters previously dealt with by the Human Rights Court. The UK certainly intends no longer to be governed by rulings of that court once the current transition period is ended.

      Clear?

      • Newminster
        No it’s not clear at all.
        Perhaps I put too many links in last reply. Sorry if you get double now

        From various parts of the internet
        In its 2010 and 2015 manifestos, the Conservative party sought to replace this system with a ‘UK Bill of Rights’. The party’s 2014 paper gives the fullest explanation of its proposals, which included re-framing and narrowing certain rights and their field of application; removing the section 3 HRA obligation to interpret legislation in light of human rights; and removing the section 4 obligation to take into account Strasbourg case-law. It further proposed to render Strasbourg’s judgments ‘advisory’ and to withdraw from the ECHR if these changes were rejected. The 2017 Conservative manifesto paused these proposals pending Brexit, but promised a review of the human rights framework once Brexit was complete.
        ——–
        The court, which is entirely separate to the EU’s institutions, was established after the second world war as an arbiter of disputes over the European convention of human rights, to which 47 states are signatories.

        However, it has long been the aim of some Tories for the UK to leave the convention, which they say restricts parliamentary sovereignty.
        ——
        The UK looks set to reject EU demands to stick to the European Convention on Human Rights, sparking a massive Brexit row.

        Brussels chiefs have demanded Britain obeys the ECHR – which enshrines rights to family life, free speech and protection from discrimination – as an explicit part of a trade deal after Brexit .
        —–

        The sub-committee had sought clarification about a change in wording between the draft and final versions of the Political Declaration regarding the UK’s future relationship with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

        The summary draft of the Political Declaration originally indicated that the relationship would be underpinned by a ‘reaffirmation of the United Kingdom’s commitment to the ECHR’, but the final document replaced this with the more nuanced formulation that the UK would merely agree ‘to respect the framework of the ECHR.’

  13. This issue is not as straightforward as it first appears.

    Freedom of speech is guaranteed under the law in Germany. Topic-influencing and issue positioning are also protected under the same umbrella. It is not something that any society can police effectively. People hold views. The source of those beliefs are generally not trackable. They have a right to publish those views.

    What is strictly illegal is surreptitious/undeclared theme placement (“Themenplatzierung”) by entities who are third parties to the broadcaster, and who fund the broadcaster to help them position those themes with the public by stealth.

    There seems to be no doubt that Naomi accepted some funding from the Heartland Institute, and it is that fact and only that fact that makes the position here less than clear. Under the law, she could still make her broadcast, but, in my reading of the legal provisions, she was required to declare/clarify her association with Heartland at the start and end of each and every broadcast as long as she was receiving any sort of funding.

    The law as framed is intended to protect consumers from hidden advertisements, as well as preventing foreign powers from surreptitiously interfering in elections. (!)

    I have no doubt that the rules are not being applied even-handedly here, but tu quoque arguments are not going to work in the law courts. The authorities had a duty of action when the complaint was received. That they chose to respond in such a heavy-handed manner is bad, but not entirely out of character.

    Turning the legal case into a cause celebre may not be fruitful. I would hope that Naomi’s lawyer will tell her to fight only what can be easily defended.

    The best political response, if someone has the stomach for it, is to comb through several hundred videos on social media where individuals who have received sponsorship from Greenpeace, FoE and WWF have made broadcasts without declaring their association at the start and end. Then bombard the same German authority with several hundred letters of complaint, and see if their response is commensurate.

    • You have cited Article 7 para. 7 of the Interstate Broadcasting Treaty (Rundfunkstaatsvertrag-RStV) above. But this seems to be a statement of agreed (between states) policy rather than a law that is enforceable against individuals. It seems that the Media Authority of North Rhine-Westphalia may be simply pointing out a breach of that agreed policy, rather than threatening prosecution, which may in any case be beyond their authority.

      That is why we need to see the actual letters from NRW, to see what they really say.

      • If it was like that there would not be a specific amount, the fact there is an amount mentioned means there is something a bit more specific involved. What is the case I have no idea you would need to see the letter but the only one who could shed light on that is Naomi herself.

        If I had to have a guess I would say some left activist in NRW just wanted to make trouble is probably the most likely answer.

        • “the fact there is an amount mentioned”
          It has only been mentioned by Lord M. Is it in the letter? We don’t know.

          “I would say some left activist in NRW just wanted to make trouble”
          It seems they were dealing with a complaint. It may have come from such a person.

          • Mr Stokes continues to whine futilely. He has produced no evidence that the State Media Authority has not acted as I have described in the head posting.

          • Correct we haven’t seen the letter but it would be end of the line for Naomi’s credibility to make up such a story. There is also no claim the fine is thousands or millions so it is petty amount and goes back to the point it would not be worth making up. Lets put German perspective on it, forbidden picnics cost €250 per person, while playing a banned sporting event will cost you €1,000. So you can gauge the level of the claimed offense just by the amount mentioned.

            If you still believe the claim is false, ask the only person who can provide your proof Naomi herself. At the moment you sound like half the anti-science whack jobs on here who want us to prove Relativity or QM to them … your not believing isn’t our problem it is yours.

          • “He has produced no evidence that the State Media Authority has not acted as I have described in the head posting.”
            I have produced evidence that the claim you made in your fund-raising pitch:
            “Without a hearing, German officials have fined her and demanded costs…”
            was false, and you now seem to have backed away from that.

            “end of the line for Naomi’s credibility to make up such a story”
            In fact we have only heard from Lord M on this, so Naomi’s credibility is not at stake. It’s pretty bad for Lord M’s credibility that he can’t produce the letters.

          • Not just now, he’s been childish for a long, long time. Par for the Stokes course, really.

          • It’s okay I will remind Nick of this conversation when next he tries to defend some unsubstantiated claim from left/green sources. It won’t be long before it happens and he had better produce the evidence when demanded.

      • Nick,
        I share your desire for more detailed information on this subject, but your last comment is silly.

        If you read the preamble to the treaty, it is between the 16 states in Germany, including the 6 states formerly in East Germany. The preamble suggests that it came into being as a mechanism for unifying the regulations applied to East and West Germany at the time of German reunification, as well as satisfying some other perceived international needs.

        No governing entity can enter into a contract, in this case an inter-state treaty, without having in place the necessary legislation to permit it to honour the contract. Hence, the regulations set out in the treaty must of necessity be supported by state enabling law at least, which ensures that it can be enforced. Since Germany is also signatory to a number of relevant EU treaty obligations, I suspect that there is also some adoptive federal legislation to support the interstate treaty.

        As well as setting up a unifying framework, the treaty has the effect of giving the regulations a federal scope while jurisdiction remains at state level in normal cases.

        Unless you believe that there is a gigantic hole in German jurisprudence, the regulations set out in the treaty therefore constitute laws which are enforceable against individuals, definitely at state level and possibly at federal level.

        The Reuters factcheck which you introduced has quotes from a representative of the state authority claiming that “the videos…violate German law.” and citing the article from the treaty which I published above. Evidently he does not suffer your doubts about whether the treaty is soft policy or enforceable law.

        • “Unless you believe that there is a gigantic hole”
          No. But the point is that you say this is the section that she is accused of contravening, and I don’t think it can be. As you say, there is going to be enabling legislation, but you would need to see what that says, not Article 7/7. And then whether it does apply to Youtube, say.

          Did the Authority letter invoke such legislation? We don’t know.

          • “But the point is that you say this is the section that she is accused of contravening,…”

            No, that comes from an e-mail sent by Landesanstalt für Medien NRW to Reuters:-

            “Ms. Seibt was requested to delete two YouTube videos because they violate German law. The basis of our decision is the prohibition of third party influence on the editorial content in audiovisual media according to articles 7 para. 7 sentence 1 in connection with 58 para. 3 sentence 1 of the Interstate Broadcasting Treaty (Rundfunkstaatsvertrag-RStV)”

            (Ahem, cough.) This was a reference introduced by you.

            So if I summarise your argument:-
            We don’t know what law Naomi has breached or even if she has breached a law since the cited document looks like a treaty which may not be enforceable against individuals AND
            the fact that the authority prosecuting her says she has violated a law does not mean that such law exists
            AND
            the fact that the agency prosecuting her states in writing to Reuters that Art 7/Para 7/1 is the relevant prohibition does not mean that they are actually invoking this article to prosecute her for a violation of a law, since the law may not exist
            AND
            the prosecuting agency is therefore actually selling a clever dummy to Reuters, who may be lying or may not exist.

            OK, I think I have got it now.

          • “OK, I think I have got it now.”
            Good. But re-examine this repeated assumption:
            “the fact that the agency prosecuting her states…”

            Who says that the agency is prosecuting her? Again, we can’t see the letters. But all the agency has said to Reuters is that it thinks the videos breach this agreement between states, and would like her to stop. They may have no intent (or ability) to prosecute.

            Why would they write to her then? My guess is that someone complained, perhaps pointing to Article 7/7, and said, you have to do something. So the agency asked her to stop. Something has been done.

          • Mr Stokes continues to be silly. The State Media Authority has issued an administrative act – in effect a judgment without trial – giving Naomi the three unpleasant choices described in the head posting. Naomi will appeal to the real court against the kangaroo court.

    • Thanks for the additional info.
      BTW I have a teenage daughter who watches countless YouTube videos with product placement. It’s a key marketing strategy.

    • The law as framed is intended to protect consumers from hidden advertisements

      …intended to sell something to the viewer. What product does the Heartland Institute offer for money? And was that mentioned?

      • Mr Bensch makes an excellent point. No product of the Institute is advertised in any of the three videos originally complained of. And there is nothing “hidden” about Naomi’s association with the Heartland Institute: it is declared right at the beginning of the one video that mentions Heartland.

    • In response to Kribaez, Naomi Seibt will in due course be advised by a competent administrative lawyer – probably one who formerly worked at a senior level in the German Government.

      Naomi Seibt only mentioned the Heartland Institute in one video, and she made plain her membership of that Institute right at the beginning of the video and again in the concluding section. She has been completely open, and there is nothing “surreptitious” in her conduct.

      The matter is straightforward. The Authority will lose this case, and may itself face criminal prosecution.

  14. Thank you for the clarification, LCMoB.

    The issue of the fine reminds me of the infamous Jeremy Paxman/Michael Howard interview – doublespeak didn’t work well there.

  15. To get a meaningful answer let the courts shine their light on the merits of the case. I have no confidence in blog platform legal procedures. Let her have her day in court and, if Germany is really in violation of the European Human Rights Treaty let them change their laws. From reading the legal literature on the topic the German prohibition is more strict than the EU directive on hidden advertising in Par 7 Abs 7 Satz 1 Rundfunkstaatsvertrag (treaty between the federal states, basis for the federal states laws). The EU directive does not prohibit the sponsoring of content on religious ideological and political issues but basically only topics with a commercial background. It is an interesting legal question, as what is the Heartland institute, a research institute? A political organization (but then everything is political)? A think tank? Religious? Ideological? Human rights charity? So better take it to court and let the judge reprove the bureaucrats. What can be more rewarding?

  16. Firstly, thanks to Monckton for using his talent and insight in this case.
    Secondly, thanks to Seibt for not to cave in. I guess she gets good advice from her parents.

    What is the intention of the broadcasting law used by the NRW?
    Isn’t the intention of the broadcasting law to hinder unfair commercial advertisement? Something like favor a certain lawyer office, auto repair, toothpaste, etc. in a non-advertisement section.

    It is difficult for me to see how climate science and a freedom organization (Heartland.org) fall into the intention of NRW broadcast law.

    As I did some days ago on WUWT, I compare Heartland Institute to Schiller Institute. Members of both organizations have much the same line of thinking. Would there also be an attempt to muffle Seibt if, she announced in an internationally broadcasted video, that she is has become a member of the Schiller Institute?

    Next they will forbid you to officially state that, you have become a member of the local Protestant Church – Only Catholic Church may officially be mentioned./SARC

  17. I can just imagine these beautiful people just so happy spending their days cleaning the internet.

    https://www.medienanstalt-nrw.de/themen/hass/verfolgen-statt-nur-loeschen-rechtsdurchsetzung-im-netz.html

    DIE INITIATIVE “VERFOLGEN STATT NUR LÖSCHEN”

    THE “TRACK INSTEAD OF JUST DELETE” INITIATIVE ( how delightful)
    (google translation)
    Law enforcement online

    Members of the “Track Instead of Just Erase” Initiative
    The values ​​of our society apply to the Internet as well as to the outside. Therefore, no legally free spaces can be allowed in the network. Against this background, the initiative pursuing instead of just deleting is committed to protecting freedom and democracy online, making it the only such initiative in Germany. It started in 2017 and brings together representatives from media regulators, law enforcement agencies and media companies. The aim is to facilitate law enforcement on the Internet and thus send a clear signal against illegality and ruthlessness on the Internet. To this end, the State Media Authority of North Rhine-Westphalia cooperates with the central and contact point for cybercrime of the public prosecutor’s office in North Rhine-Westphalia (ZAC NRW), the State Criminal Police Office in North Rhine-Westphalia and the media houses Mediengruppe RTL Deutschland,Rheinische Post and West German radio.

    These “hate crime” laws are growing like mushrooms at the moment all over Europe and are being used as censorship tools. In France just last week, in the middle of everything else that’s going on, we get spoilt with yet another “hate speech” law, the “loi Avia”.

    One of the articles:
    L’article 7 prévoit la création d’un ” observatoire de la haine en ligne ”
    ( Article 7 provides for the creation of an “online hate observatory”)

    ……… definition of what they call “hate” ? ……..mmmm… I’m sure it’ll be fine….

    Would anybody be surprised if these types of laws were NOT being used to manipulate thought.

    If you can’t say a man is a man and a woman is a woman without being scrubbed from existence , what hope.

  18. I can only assume that the thousands of greenie youtubers that spew their garbage whilst wearing their greenpeace t-shirts in front of a WWF banner are contravening the same laws. How many of them will be prosecuted?

    • In the minds of your average leftist, laws were never meant to apply to them.
      The purpose of government is to suppress those the left disagrees with, and to provide the leftists with free stuff.

    • How many of them will be prosecuted?

      With leftists the motto “laws for thee not for me” always applies.

  19. I am becoming a little confused. Lord Monckton stated that an appeal has been lodged presumably from the wording with the state administrative court yet according to the state? government no fine or conviction has been imposed. Something about these 2 statements does not add up. If no fine or conviction has been imposed what is being appealed? How can one lodge an appeal against a fine or conviction that has not been imposed?

    According to the government they simply asked her to take down the videos. If so, she does not need to appeal, she could simply decline to comply giving her reasons (ie: her defence). Then the government could back down or they would have to fine her. The government could of course issue a fine without a court hearing, happens all the time, think about speeding fines, parking tickets and the like. In that case she would then have grounds to lodge an appeal against the fine just as one can against a speeding ticket one thinks is unjust. Although I think the more normal procedure would be to simply refuse to pay the fine, in which case the government would have to issue a summons to a court hearing at which Naomi could present her defence (ie: her day in court). Could they impose a prison sentence without a court hearing? I would be amazed if they could.

    So if an appeal has indeed been lodged as claimed (and presumably accepted) there has to be a conviction or fine imposed that is being appealed. I must confess, Nick Stokes comment that seeing the documents would make things clear is reasonable but then I also acknowledge that the decision to show or not show rests with the recipient (Naomi) and there could be very good legal grounds to keep them confidential ahead of a court hearing.

    Having said all that I read the transcript of what Naomi reportedly said on the utube videos and in my opinion there is absolutely nothing objectionable about what she said. In fact I found her comments extremely restrained, respectful and rational. I fail to see how any even halfway impartial observer could find something objectionable. The one thing that is apparently not disputed from either side is that the government did ask her to take them down which suggest to me that they are totally biased or under the control of someone else who is totally biased. That indeed makes a mockery of their claim to uphold free speech.

    • In response to Mr Hammer, his characterization of Naomi Seibt’s remarks in her videos as reasonable and not giving any legitimate grounds for complaint on the part of the State Media Authority are correct.

      Despite the increasingly desperate bluster by Mr Stokes, who, as usual, spouts the Party Line without any knowledge of the underlying facts, which he attempts with increasing futility to deny, the position is exactly as stated in the head posting. The State Media Authority has issued an administrative act giving Naomi three choices: remove two videos from YouTube, pay a fine of 1000 euros plus 200 euros costs for each video (total 2400 euros), or go to prison for up to 28 days.

      Mr Hammer will appreciate that there is no legitimate basis for any such order on the part of the Authority.

      • Lord Monckton; I completely agree that there is no rational (or legal) justification for The State Media Authority to object to any of the content disclosed in the transcripts published. For them to that so strongly suggests a desperate desire to shut down free speech and to do this to a 19 year old girl is despicable. But then, I am appalled by the way Naomi’ is treated by the left in general. That sort of treatment, in my opinion, would be unjustified when directed towards a seasoned politician (slimeing the man to discredit the message) but to do this to a clearly sincere intelligent 19 year old girl who is simply enacting her right to free speech, words fail me. She must really really scare them. I suspect if Greta had been treated even half as badly by skeptics there would have been violent revolts by now, but then I seriously doubt Greta would have survived such treatment. Thank you for standing by Naomi, no matter how courageous she is she needs all the support she get when faced with the sort of outrage she has had to put up with.

        I assume the appeal is against the “request” (or is that the order) she take down the videos under threat of fine or imprisonment not against an actual fine already imposed.

        • The appeal is against the administrative act ordering Naomi to take down 2 videos, or pay 2400 euros, or go to prison for up to 28 days.

        • “But then, I am appalled by the way Naomi’ is treated by the left in general.”

          I’m sure the left is appalled at the treatment of Greta by the right. Two wrongs don’t make a right, but three lefts do.

    • “I also acknowledge that the decision to show or not show rests with the recipient (Naomi) and there could be very good legal grounds to keep them confidential ahead of a court hearing.”

      Confidential from whom? All parties to any such hearing would have those letters. In fact, the opposition wrote them.

      • It’s up to the parties involved to show (or not) the letters. It’s not up to third parties to do so, no matter how many times you ask them to.

  20. Great !
    Thank you !

    Also for refereing to Naomi using only her name and not something she does not want to be called.

  21. I don’t need a personal thank you letter, she has better things to do with her time

  22. There is a paragraph in the German Basic Law: There is no censorship!
    Now I see there is censorship.
    BTW. I didn’t know anything about Neomi that has changed. It is a great PR campaign!

  23. Now here is a challenge for each of you.
    Can you identify a single similarity between Naomi and the other one?

    • If your trying to make some “brilliant insight” in regards to the “anti-Greta” label, I think you might need to look up the definition of “anti”, (hint it doesn’t mean similar).

  24. In recent years, liberals have discovered all kinds of hidden penumbras to the various limitations on state power.
    Limitations that can only be seen by liberals and only apply to people that liberals don’t like.

  25. This has all the justice of the courts in the French revolution, Have you sold bread to the King, yes, guilty, take him away.

    Authority acting against the law of nature and inept.

  26. If Naomi were to leave Germany to avoid being jailed, she would become a true climate refugee. Even if it is the political climate.

  27. Dear Lord Monckton,

    this is to express my admiration for your souvereignity in handling not just the case of Naomi, but as well how you cope with some mind crippled trolls in this blog.
    In reading all this, I sometimes feel ashamed being German, but what can I do? What I almost am more ashamed of, over here, there so far was no a single word of the whol affair in one of our German mainstream newspapers! Can you imagine that? Poor Germany that it has to refer to a foreign source to keep up being informed.
    I wish you all the best, and of course even more so to Naomi. Please keep up your good work!

    If someone wants to complain about my por English, you are welcomed to do so!

    Chris Frey, active in the climate realistic scene in Germany

  28. Lord Monckton,
    I am not a lawyer. I spent a couple of hours going through the Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz (VwVfG) (The administrative Procedure Act) as it applies to Media, Post, Information and Data Statutes, as well as the Gesetz über die Verbreitung jugendgefährdender Schriften und Medieninhalte (GjSM). Sometimes, bad laws are drafted with good intentions.

    I believe that I now understand why Naomi cannot and should not publish any correspondence she has had with the state authority.

    You are walking a very fine line, and may already have crossed it. But, as I said, I am not a lawyer. I sincerely hope that you have taken sufficient relevant legal advice to ensure that your own actions help to skewer the dragon rather than the maiden.

  29. to inform the French speaking public about this, please can we have scans of what she received from the authorities, fine, further docs? Thank you

  30. As Nick Stokes has pointed out so eloquently, so far, from Lord Monckton, we only have some hearsay information that an authority has brought an action under the statutes on restriction of advertising, unsupported by any evidence. If such an action really exists, then German law threatens a one year jail sentence for publishing certain details about such action while it is sub judice. The intention of the law ostensibly is to prevent a Streisand effect which benefits the advertiser and circumvents the intent of the prior censorship. If I were the object of such action, I certainly would not publish any documents related to the case, if such case exists.
    The only direct evidence of any form which we have comes from the authority itself, which, instead of the usual formula ( “we never comment on pending or ongoing cases”) appear to have breached de facto if not de jure the relevant administrative statute with a possibly libellous statement.

    • “appear to have breached de facto if not de jure the relevant administrative statute with a possibly libellous statement”

      Boring remark.

      Almost any interesting statement is “possibly libelous”.

      That law is a joke.

  31. The English fighting German tyranny, where have I seen that before and who will win ? Only history can tell us. . .

Comments are closed.