The Curious Case of Article 299 of the Turkish Penal Code: Insulting the Turkish President


Judgments by the Strasbourg Court are binding on Turkey and furthermore are the primary source for interpreting the European Convention of Human Rights, a treaty to which Turkey is party and which, according to Article 90 of the Turkish Constitution, prevails over national laws such as Article 299 of the Turkish Penal Code on insulting the President, in the event of conflict. ECtHR jurisprudence clearly indicates such a conflict between Article 299 and the Convention. But are Turkish courts aware of this?

Continue Reading →

The German NetzDG: A Risk Worth Taking?


While the NetzDG is unlikely to resolve all challenges surrounding social media and freedom of expression, and undoubtedly presents a certain risk of stifling expression online, I believe it is nonetheless a significant step in the right direction. Rather than undermine freedom of expression, it promises to contribute to more inclusive debates by giving the loud and radical voices less prominence. In any case, it appears reasonable to let this regulatory experiment play out and observe whether fears over a ‘chilling effect’ on free expression are borne out by the evidence.

Continue Reading →

The Hierarchy of Hate: Mixed Signals in the Combat against Hate Speech


There is a number of varying thresholds to free speech regulation set out by relevant legal tools which can do nothing but confuse countries. Moreover, anti-hate speech legislation developed on an international and European level is marred by what I refer to as the hierarchy of hate, namely the arbitrary focus on particular types of hate speech, such as racist speech, and the simultaneous disregard for other genres such as homophobic speech.

Continue Reading →

Calling Murders by Their Names as Criminal Offence – a Risk of Statutory Negationism in Poland

,

On the eve of the Holocaust Remembrance Day on 27th of January, the Polish Sejm approved a law on the defamation of the Polish State and Nation, causing extremely harsh reactions from Israel, Holocaust survivors and international organizations. While the attempt to ban the use of the word "Polish concentration camp" seems fully justified, the scope of the law goes way beyond that and is a threat to the freedom of speech and academic research.

Continue Reading →

The Catalunya Conundrum, Part 3: Protecting the Constitution by Violating the Constitution


Lacking legitimacy in Catalonia because of the absence of solutions to Catalan democratic claims within the Spanish legal framework, the position of Spanish institutions is badly weakened. Therefore, they do not to want to take the risk of creating even more political unrest in Catalonia with public and explicit debates on the suspension of autonomy or on the necessity of limiting fundamental rights. Instead, Spanish government is pushing other institutions, such as the Constitutional Court, prosecutors, police and judges, as well as their own executive powers, beyond their ordinary limits.

Continue Reading →

Geert Wilders’ “Incitement to Discriminate” Trial


Months before the parliamentary elections in the Netherlands, the leader of the far-right Freedom Party and election favorite Geert Wilders finds himself before a criminal court. He is charged with insulting and inciting discrimination against residents of Moroccan descent by promising his supporters "fewer Moroccans" in 2014. Wilders and his defence seem to invoke the theory of the ‘marketplace of ideas’, which is a common line of thinking in United States First Amendment law. The principal standard for Dutch courts however, the European Convention of Human Rights, takes a somewhat different stance.

Continue Reading →

Das BVerfG verpasst der "Facebook-Zensur" aber so was von überhaupt nicht einen Dämpfer


Hat das Bundesverfassungsgericht auf seinem Sommerfeldzug für die Meinungsfreiheit Position gegen die Regulierung von Hate Speech im Internet bezogen? Jawohl, behauptet die Publizistin Bettina Röhl und vereinnahmt eine der Entscheidungen, mit denen die 3. Kammer des Ersten Senats in den letzten Tagen den Schutzbereich des Art. 5 Grundgesetz verteidigt, als Kassation jenes "allgemeinen Zensurungeist(s) der politischen Korrektheit", gegen den die Neue Rechte seit langem zu den Waffen ruft. Ich glaube, da hat Frau Röhl was missverstanden.

Continue Reading →

Was wahr ist, darf man sagen (im Prinzip jedenfalls)


Der gestern schon konstatierte Karlsruher Sommerfeldzug zugunsten der Meinungsfreiheit geht weiter, die 3. Kammer ist nicht zu bremsen: Gestern ging es um die Konstellation, dass die Gerichte Meinungen zu Tatsachen umetikettieren, auf dass sie nicht mehr den Schutz der Meinungsfreiheit genießen. Heute geht es um die Konstellation, dass sie Tatsachenäußerungen verbieten, obwohl sie wahr sind.

Continue Reading →

Meinungsfreiheit schützt auch Beschimpfungen (aber halt nicht sehr)


Dem schönen Wort "Schmähkritik" hat vor ein paar Monaten Jan Böhmermann zu ungeahnter Prominenz verholfen, als er sich im Fernsehen an einem gereimten Beispiel einer solchen gegenüber dem türkischen Staatschef Recep Tayyip Erdoğan versuchte und daraufhin von demselben prompt angezeigt wurde. Einen Putschversuch später hat jetzt das Bundesverfassungsgericht einige klärende Worte gesprochen, wo die mit dem Persönlichkeitsrecht des Kritisierten abzuwägende Meinungsfreiheit aufhört und die absolut verbotene "Schmähkritik" anfängt.

Continue Reading →
↑ Top of Page