Call/WhatsApp/Text: +44 20 3289 5183

Question: Political philosophy can often help us think through contemporary dilemmas. Drawing from On Liberty, make an argument about how Mill would view Germany’s free speech lawsand then evaluate that view.

14 Oct 2022,11:19 PM

 

Political philosophy can often help us think through contemporary dilemmas. Drawing from On Liberty, make an argument about how Mill would view Germany’s free speech lawsand then evaluate that view. You might want to defend Mill’s position, refine it, or refute it.

 

Section 86 Dissemination of Means of Propaganda of Unconstitutional Organizations

(1) Whoever domestically disseminates or produces, stocks, imports or exports or makes publicly accessible through data storage media for dissemination domestically or abroad, means of propaganda:

  1. of a party which has been declared to be unconstitutional by the Federal Constitutional Court or a party or organization, as to which it has been determined, no longer subject to appeal, that it is a substitute organization of such a party;
  2. of an organization, which has been banned, no longer subject to appeal, because it is directed against the constitutional order or against the idea of international understanding, or as to which it has been determined, no longer subject to appeal, that it is a substitute organization of such a banned organization;
  3. of a government, organization or institution outside of the territorial area of application of this law which is active in pursuing the objectives of one of the parties or organizations indicated in numbers 1 and 2; or
  4. means of propaganda, the contents of which are intended to further the aims of a former National Socialist organization,

shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine.

(2) Means of propaganda within the meaning of subsection (1) shall only be those writings (Section 11 subsection (3)) the content of which is directed against the free, democratic constitutional order or the idea of international understanding.

(3) Subsection (1) shall not be applicable if the means of propaganda or the act serves to further civil enlightenment, to avert unconstitutional aims, to promote art or science, research or teaching, reporting about current historical events or similar purposes.

(4) If guilt is slight, the court may refrain from imposition of punishment pursuant to this provision.

Section 86a Use of Symbols of Unconstitutional Organizations

(1) Whoever:

  1. domestically distributes or publicly uses, in a meeting or in writings (Section 11 subsection (3)) disseminated by him, symbols of one of the parties or organizations indicated in Section 86 subsection (1), nos. 1, 2 and 4; or
  2. produces, stocks, imports or exports objects which depict or contain such symbols for distribution or use domestically or abroad, in the manner indicated in number 1,

shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine.

(2) Symbols, within the meaning of subsection (1), shall be, in particular, flags, insignia, uniforms, slogans and forms of greeting. Symbols which are so similar as to be mistaken for those named in sentence 1 shall be deemed to be equivalent thereto.

(3) Section 86 subsections (3) and (4), shall apply accordingly.

 

 

Section 130

Incitement to hatred

(1) Whosoever, in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace

  1. incites hatred against segments of the population or calls for violent or arbitrary measures against them; or
  2. assaults the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning, or defaming segments of the population,

shall be liable to imprisonment from three months to five years.

(2) Whosoever

  1. with respect to written materials (section 11(3)) which incite hatred against segments of the population or a national, racial or religious group, or one characterised by its ethnic customs, which call for violent or arbitrary measures against them, or which assault the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning or defaming segments of the population or a previously indicated group

(a) disseminates such written materials;

(b) publicly displays, posts, presents, or otherwise makes them accessible;

(c) offers, supplies or makes them accessible to a person under eighteen years; or

(d) produces, obtains, supplies, stocks, offers, announces, commends, undertakes to import or export them, in order to use them or copies obtained from them within the meaning of Nos (a) to (c) or facilitate such use by another; or

  1. disseminates a presentation of the content indicated in No 1 above by radio, media services, or telecommunication services

shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding three years or a fine.

(3) Whosoever publicly or in a meeting approves of, denies or downplays an act committed under the rule of National Socialism of the kind indicated in section 6 (1) of the Code of International Criminal Law, in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding five years or a fine.

(4) Whosoever publicly or in a meeting disturbs the public peace in a manner that violates the dignity of the victims by approving of, glorifying, or justifying National Socialist rule of arbitrary force shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding three years or a fine.

(5) Subsection (2) above shall also apply to written materials (section 11(3)) of a content such as is indicated in subsections (3) and (4) above.

(6) In cases under subsection (2) above, also in conjunction with subsection (5) above, and in cases of subsections (3) and (4) above, section 86(3) shall apply mutatis mutandis.

Expert answer

 

In On Liberty, Mill famously argues for the importance of freedom of speech. He believes that free speech is essential for intellectual and social progress, because it allows for the exchange of ideas and the testing of hypotheses. Therefore, Mill would likely be in favor of Germany’s free speech laws, which allow for a high degree of freedom of expression.

 

However, Mill would also recognize that there are limits to free speech. For example, he would argue that speech can be legitimately censored when it threatens public safety or violates other basic rights. In the context of Germany’s free speech laws, this would mean that Mill would support the government’s ability to restrict speech that promotes hatred or violence.

Overall, Mill would view Germany’s free speech laws as generally positive, but with some necessary caveats. He would argue that the benefits of free speech outweigh the risks, and that society needs to be open to new ideas in order to progress. At the same time, he would recognize that there are limits to free speech, and that these need to be respected in order to protect the rights and safety of others.

Stuck Looking For A Model Original Answer To This Or Any Other
Question?


Related Questions

What Clients Say About Us

WhatsApp us