The Federal Constitutional Court stressed in a recent decision, the wide limits of freedom of expression: "An under the supervision of conduct for a period of five years, issued a general publication ban on "dissemination of right-wing extremist, or Nazi ideas" is unconstitutional, "is the public today press release
background. The Higher Regional Court in Munich had the complainant and Others for membership in a terrorist group (§ 129a StGB ) and sentenced under the supervision of conduct - including -. the Criminal Code § 145a after prohibition, "a publicist to spread extremist right-or national-socialist ideas" for a period of five years imposed in view of the previous convictions, Event actions and the fact that he had written during the penal fees for right-wing magazines, had to get his opinion of the Court of Appeals unchanged persistent feeling that he would offend against future publications with § § 130, 86a StGB.
interpreted this constitutional watchdogs in Karlsruhe as unconstitutional. The Senate lifted the ban because it was too general and therefore "unreasonable" interference in the freedom of the neo-Nazis. Freedom of expression protects principle - within the limits of Article 5 paragraph 2 GG - the dissemination of right-wing extremist views. The classification of a position as "extreme right" was a "matter of political opinion struggle" and is subject to changing political and social assessments, it based its decision. The ban is not sufficiently distinguishable, since it also covers publications below the threshold of § § 130, 86a StGB. The contested decision does not conclusively "whether the prohibition of the dissemination of" national socialist ideas "any ideas which promoted under the National Socialist violence and arbitrary rule was supposed to be covered or only certain sections of the National Socialist ideology, and, if the latter is the case should be, can be determined by what criteria this website. "
A courageous decision. . Courageous, because they give rise to heated discussion and has provoked opposition nigh
This is the basic idea as so obvious as applicable: Not all of Nazi propaganda are on the level of incitement (§ 130 StGB). Much of it is just nonsense and wrong. The basic rule of law for freedom of expression, it must make to be able to publish nonsense. Otherwise, a convicted neo-Nazi would be liable to prosecution if he would publish what such a man as much attention Sarazin said with no small applause. Consideration of the Jewish common gene Population were from a number of people classified as being quite akin to the Nazi worldview. And more recently, was again - with impunity - speculated that the attack of Poland in 1939 by the Wehrmacht not perhaps just an attack by the Polish Army had anticipated.
other hand: As far as reaching the OLG itself probably has not seen his publication ban. Which raises the question whether this would not be the reference to the need for a constitutional interpretation satisfies the imposed ban. Especially since the Court of Appeals has already given its reasons for imposing the ban quite clear indications of what should be their aim: To prevent the complainant may continue as in the past, publish and disseminate ideas and that gives rise to criminal prosecution.
Well, the judges of the Court of Appeal have given at least enough hints along the way, how they can achieve their legitimate objective certainly constitutional.
0 comments:
Post a Comment