A tenet of a free and democratic nation's judicial system is that its courtroom proceedings be visible to the public. Although often to the distress of the accused (commonly seen covering their faces to the camera), the purpose of this is not to shame anyone. It is to ensure that miscarriages (and abortions) of justice never go undetected. Such is not the case in my neighboring country. When the decision was made that Anders Behring Breivik's own account of the events of July 22 not be broadcast out of "understanding" for the victim's families and friends, there was a consensus of meek agreement in the media. I was surprised and enraged. Who are the judges to decide what the public may or may not see, and why is there no outrage that the (it should be noted, assumed) feelings of the concerned are considered to be of higher importance than the people's right to an open courtroom? Any such notion is thrown out the window; the judges pick-and-choose what you're allowed to see, lest the delusions of an extreme narcissist influence you or hurt the feelings of the easily hurt.

Enough of this sobfest; shame on the judges, shame on the NRK and shame on those who try to justify censorship.