Read the piece on wiumlie.no ↗
Every claim below was made in this piece, quoted word for word and numbered in the order the piece makes them, so you can read it there rather than take our word for it. The sentence above each quote is our reading of the claim, not their wording. Each quote was checked against a stored copy of the page at build time; where the two differ, the quote is the fact.
Their wordsshares the principles we have fought so hard for: court decisions are public records that must be publicly available.
Their wordsAnd in 2019, public access means being on the web, for free, in searchable form.
Their wordsIn the courts, we argued that freedom of speech entitles us to publish documents that are core to a democratic society. And freedom of speech must trump the Database Directive.
Our reading
Norwegian courts were lenient with Lovdata because of its special status in the legal establishment.
Their wordsWhy were the courts so strict with us and forebearing with Lovdata? I think it has to do with Lovdata's special status in the Norwegian legal establishment.
Our reading
Norwegian courts erred in not treating Lovdata as a public sector body under the EU PSI Directive.
Their wordsNorway is under the obligation to implement the PSI directive. As such, I think the courts made a mistake when they didn't consider Lovdata to be a «public sector body».
Their wordsOur experience in the courts further strengthens our belief that court decisions must be made public. Even those that don't do justice.
Keep reading
The other pieces are the ones whose claims are worded most like this one's. That measures language, not agreement: they may argue the opposite.