The space for strategic manoeuvring in adjudicating a freedom of speech case in the Netherlands

References

1. Buruma, Y.
   (2008) Strafvervolging van een kamerlid [Prosecution of a Member of Parliament]. Nederlands Juristenblad, 83(13), 749–750.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Buruma, Y.
   (2009) Note to Hof Amsterdam [Amsterdam Court of Appeal]21 January 2009, NJ 2009, 191, 1795–1798.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Buruma, Y.
   (2010) Een politiek proces [A political trial]. Nederlands Juristenblad, 85(37), 2401.
   [Google Scholar]
4. de Roos, T.
   (30January 2009) Juridisering islamdebat kan averechts werken [Juridifaction of the Islam debate can be counterproductive]. De Volkskrant. Retrieved from: www.volkskrant.nl/opinie/juridisering-islamdebat-kan-averechts-werken~a2452735/.
   [Google Scholar]
5. de Roos, T.
   (2011) In afwachting van een uitspraak ten gronde in de zaak Wilders [In anticipation of a decision on the merits of the Wilders case]. Nederlands Juristenblad, 86(1), 28–29.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Dommering, E. J.
   (29January 2009) Gerechtshof had gelijk [The Court of Appeal was right]. NRC Handelsblad. Retrieved fromhttps://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2009/01/29/gerechtshof-had-gelijk-11675266-a1155874.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Hartlief, T.
   (2009) Geloven in strafrechters [Belief in criminal courts]. Nederlands Juristenblad, 84(4), 233.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Hof Amsterdam [Amsterdam Court of Appeal]
   Hof Amsterdam [Amsterdam Court of Appeal]21January 2009 Retrieved fromdeeplink.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraak?id=ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2009:BH0496.
9. Jansen, H. , & van Klink, B.
   (2November 2016) Met ‘de context’ kan Wilders alle kanten op [The ‘context’ gives Wilders much room for manoeuvre]. De Volkskrant, 27. Retrieved from: www.volkskrant.nl/opinie/met-de-context-kan-wilders-alle-kanten-op~a4406867/.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Janssen, E. , & A. Nieuwenhuis
    (2012) De verhouding tussen vrijheid van meningsuiting en discriminatie in het Wilders-proces: een analyse van ‘het proces van de eeuw’ [The relationship between freedom of speech and discrimination in the Wilders trial: An analysis of ‘the trial of the century’]. NTM/NJCM Bulletin, 37(2), 177–201.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Janssens, A. J. L. M.
    (1998) Strafbare belediging [Criminal insult]. (Dissertation University of Groningen.)
    [Google Scholar]
12. Lawson, R.
    (2008) Wild, wilder, wildst. Over de ruimte die het EVRM laat voor de vervolging van kwetsende politici [Wild, wilder, wildest. On the margin allowed by the ECHR for prosecution of offensive politicians]. NJCM Bulletin, 33(4), 469–484.
    [Google Scholar]
13. Lawson, R.
    (29January 2009) Proces Wilders moet gevoerd worden [Wilders trial must take place]. De Volkskrant. Retrieved from: www.volkskrant.nl/opinie/proces-wilders-moet-gevoerd-worden~a2452703/.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Maris, C. W.
    (2011) Vrijheid van discriminerende uitingen? [Freedom of discriminatory expressions?] Caribisch Juristenblad, 1(2), 93–110.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Mevis, P. A. M.
    (2003) Note to HR [Supreme Court]14January 2003 ( Pastor Herbig ), NJ 2003, 261, 2097–2100.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Mevis, P. A. M.
    (2010) Note to HR [Supreme Court]10March 2009 ( Cancer case ), NJ 2010, 19, 198–202.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Nieuwenhuis, A. J.
    (2009) Note to Hof Amsterdam [Amsterdam Court of Appeal]21January 2009 Mediaforum, 21(3), 131–133.
    [Google Scholar]
18. Nieuwenhuis, A.
    (2011) Na de zaak Wilders: is nu de wetgever aan zet? [After the Wilders case: Is it now the legislator’s move?] Ars Aequi, 60(12), 866–869.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Nieuwenhuis, A. J. & Janssen, E.
    (2011) De onduidelijke verhouding tussen vrijheid van meningsuiting en discriminatie: een analyse van de groepsbelediging en het haatzaaien [The unclear relationship between freedom of speech and discrimination: An analysis of insulting a group and incitement to hatred]. Mediaforum, 23(4), 94–104.
    [Google Scholar]
20. Prakken, T.
    (2009) Wilders: verbieden of toestaan? [Wilders: Ban or allow?] Nederlands Juristenblad, 84(6), 363–366.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Rechtbank Amsterdam [Amsterdam District Court]
    Rechtbank Amsterdam [Amsterdam District Court]23June 2011 Retrieved from: deeplink.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraak?id=ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2011:BQ9001.
22. Requisitory of Public Prosecution Service
    Requisitory of Public Prosecution Service (25May 2011) Retrieved from: https://www.om.nl/actueel/nieuwsberichten/@24436/requisitoir-wilders/
23. Rozemond, K.
    (2009) Vertrouw op de vrijheid, 150 jaar On Liberty van Mill en de strafrechtelijke vervolging van discriminerende uitlatingen [Trust in freedom, 150 years of Mill’s On Liberty and the criminal prosecution of discriminatory expressions]. Nederlands Juristenblad, 84(40), 2614–2618.
    [Google Scholar]
24. Rozemond, N.
    (2012) Het Wildersvonnis vanuit strafrechtelijk perspectief [The Wilders verdict from the criminal law perspective]. Note to Rechtbank Amsterdam [Amsterdam District Court] 23June 2011 Ars Aequi, 61(4), 288–289.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Rosier, Th.E.
    (1996) Vrijheid van meningsuiting en discriminatie in Nederland en Amerika [Freedom of speech and discrimination in the Netherlands and America]. (Dissertation Vrije Universiteit.) Nijmegen: Ars Aequi Libri.
    [Google Scholar]
26. Rummens, S.
    (2011) De vrije mening van politici [The free opinon of politicians]. Rechtsfilosofie & Rechtstheorie, 40, 1.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Sackers, H. J. B.
    (2009) Art. 137c Sr, godsdienstkrenkingen en het publieke debat [Art. 137c Dutch Criminal Code, religious insults and the public debate]. Strafblad, 7(3), 220–232.
    [Google Scholar]
28. Schutgens, R. J. B. Note to Rechtbank Amsterdam [Amsterdam District Court]
    (2012) Het Wildersvonnis vanuit staatsrechtelijk perspectief [The Wilders verdict from the constitutional law perspective]. Note to Rechtbank Amsterdam [Amsterdam District Court]23June 2011 Ars Aequi, 61(4), 290–294.
    [Google Scholar]
29. Veraart, W. J.
    (2010) Beledigen kan alleen in context. Kanttekeningen bij het ‘belediging islam’-arrest van 10 maart 2009 [Insult is only permitted in context. Notes to the ‘insult of Islam’ verdict of 10 March 2009]. Nederlands Juristenblad, 85(12), 724–730.
    [Google Scholar]
30. van Eemeren, F. H.
    (2010) Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. (Argumentation in Context 2.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/aic.2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.2 [Google Scholar]
31. van Eemeren, F. H. , Garssen, B. , Krabbe, E. C. W. , Snoeck Henkemans, A. , Verheij, B. , & Wagemans, J. H. M.
    (2014) Handbook of Argumentation Theory. Dordrecht: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978‑90‑481‑9473‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9473-5 [Google Scholar]
32. van Eemeren, F. H. , & Houtlosser, P.
    (2002) Strategic maneuvering: Maintaining a delicate balance. In Eemeren, F. H. van & P. Houtlosser (Eds.), Dialectic and rhetoric. The warp and woof of argumentation analysis (pp.131–159). Dordrecht etc.: Kluwer.
    [Google Scholar]
33. van Noorloos, M.
    (2011) Note to Rechtbank Amsterdam [Amsterdam District Court]23June 2011 Mediaforum, 23(9), 280–282.
    [Google Scholar]
34. Vermeulen, B.
    (2011) Strafbare belediging van God, godsdienst, godsdienstigen [Criminal insult of God, religion, religious people]. In P. H. P. H. M. C. van Kempen et al. (Eds.), Levend strafrecht, strafrechtelijke vernieuwingen in een maatschappelijke context, Liber amicorum Ybo Buruma (pp.481–490). Deventer: Kluwer.
    [Google Scholar]
35. Zwart, T.
    (2009) Wilders: ja toestaan! [Wilders: Yes, allow!] Nederlands Juristenblad, 84(6), 367–369.
    [Google Scholar]