 |
| image taken from VRT |
Een administratief medewerker van het Gentse gerechtsgebouw zit in de voorhechtenis omdat hij zonder toestemming naaktfoto's heeft gemaakt. Is dit openbare zedenschennis? (artikel, video)
Ja, hij had toestemming moeten vragen en ja, sommige mensen zullen wel aanstoot nemen aan naaktmodellen in een juridisch gebouw. Maar moet die man daarvoor in een cel zitten? Nu is men ook aan het bekijken of de modellen zelf vervolgd kunnen worden omdat ze naakt voor een raam poseerden. Ik vind dit hoogst overdreven.
In plaats van te bekijken of dit een zaak van 'openbare zedenschennis' is, zou ik liever de focus zien op de vraag of hij zich al dan niet clandestien toegang heeft verschaft tot de lokalen van het gerechtsgebouw. Is dat niet illegaal gebeurd, dan graag een tik op de vingers en eventueel bekijken of een verdere samenwerking nog wel mogelijk is, maar opgesloten worden??? Belachelijk.
English version:
A clerk of the courthouse in Ghent is locked up in custody because he had made pictures of nude models within the courthouse after closing time. Apparently, the man had had permission of making artistic pictures within the building, but it was not clear that it would be pictures of nude models. Is this really public indecency? The building was empty. (article in Dutch, video)
Yes, he should have been clear that it would be nude photography and yes, some people could be offended of the fact that there have been naked ladies walking around in the courthouse. But locking the guy up, that is highly exaggerated. At the moment, there is even discussion of prosecuting the models as they have been posing naked in front of a window.
Instead of seeing this case in the light of 'public indecency', the focus should be whether the man has been violating the trust of being an employee of the courthouse. Reprimand him and see whether further employment is still possible, but jail time??? Baloney.
English version:
A clerk of the courthouse in Ghent is locked up in custody because he had made pictures of nude models within the courthouse after closing time. Apparently, the man had had permission of making artistic pictures within the building, but it was not clear that it would be pictures of nude models. Is this really public indecency? The building was empty. (article in Dutch, video)
Yes, he should have been clear that it would be nude photography and yes, some people could be offended of the fact that there have been naked ladies walking around in the courthouse. But locking the guy up, that is highly exaggerated. At the moment, there is even discussion of prosecuting the models as they have been posing naked in front of a window.
Instead of seeing this case in the light of 'public indecency', the focus should be whether the man has been violating the trust of being an employee of the courthouse. Reprimand him and see whether further employment is still possible, but jail time??? Baloney.
More:
Update: as the photographer didn't hold a tenured position, reprimanding him is not possible and his contract has been immediately terminated (article, video).
ReplyDeleteStill, the investigation on whether his actions are seen as criminal or not, is ongoing.
Update: photographer gets 15.000 euro as compensation as the judge rules that his dismissal was "out of proportion". (article, video)
ReplyDelete