Alinea 59 Parket bij de Hoge Raad 16 december 2011

" In so far as the Government sought to distinguish the present case from that of Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas (cited above), the Court observes that the defamation proceedings in that case concerned a newspaper article containing factual statements not emanating from the newspaper itself but from a report commissioned by the authorities, while the newspaper had taken no independent steps to verify its contents. The Court examined whether, in that case, there were any special grounds for dispensing the newspaper from its ordinary obligation to do so. In the Court's view, that depended on, in particular, the nature and degree of the defamation at hand and the extent to which the newspaper could reasonably regard the report as reliable with respect to the allegations in question. The latter issue had to be determined in the light of the situation as it presented itself to the newspaper at the material time, rather than with the benefit of hindsight, on the basis of the findings of fact made by a commission of inquiry a long time thereafter (see Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas, cited above, § 66)."(21)

$ curl -s https://bron.page/api/v1/blobs/dfd62580964df14a7d01701ff5c0bca9a23ff2d9f77f0ea726af5462c1facf20 | shasum -a 256