share Recommend this site to a friend
deutsch deutsch
ALLIANCE FO§ DEMOCRACY
bombLetter to the IMF relation to the
Headbombno-value-ECM - 05/12/16
bombLetter to the CDU Youth Union - 14/11/16 bombLetter to the IDW regarding
Headbombthe EFSF’s Financial
HeadbombStatements – 19/10/16
Headbomb+ Correspondence IDW -> MFD 15/11/16
Headbomband MFD -> IDW 16/11/16
bombLetter to the european Financial
HeadbombSupervision relation to the
Headbombno-value-ECM - 03/10/16
bomb14th Letter to the Parliament for Judicial
HeadbombReview of the Free-Trade
HeadbombAgreements - 27/05/2016
bombApplication to the Constitutional
HeadbombCourt for Judicial Review of the
HeadbombFree-Trade Agreements - 27/05/2016
bombBILD - Pillory of Shame - 21/12/15 bombCriminal charge of making a false
Headbomballegation against netzpolitik.org - 17/09/2015
Headbomb+ response of Public Prosecutor in
HeadbombBerlin - 20/05/2016
bombLetter to the Ifo President - 05/11/14 bombComplaint to the German
HeadbombPress Council - 21/11/13
bombLetter to the IMF - 17/10/13
Headbomb+ Supplementary letter 22/11/13
bombLetter to the EU Commission - 17/10/13 bombLetter to the Presidium of the ECB - 17/10/13 bombAgainst the dismissal of
HeadbombFederal President Wulff - 13/06/13
Headbomb+ Response from the Hannover
HeadbombPublic Prosecutor's Office 25/07/13
Headbomb+ Opinion of the Alliance for
HeadbombDemocracy 21/08/13
Headbomb+ Letter to Celle General State Prosecutor’s
HeadbombOffice 10/10/13
bombPetition for the independence of the
HeadbombJudiciary and State Prosecutor - 06/05/13
Headbomb+ response by the Petitions Committee of
Headbombthe German Bundestag - 08/06/16
bombPetition for the introduction of genuine, direct
Headbombdemocracy - 25/04/13
Headbomb+ reply of the Bundestag - 14/11/16
bombPetition against corruption - 25/03/2013 bombCriminal complaint re. Target 2 10/11/2012 bomb1st Constitutional Complaint - against the
HeadbombFederal Government - 21/03/12
bomb2nd Constitutional Complaint - ESM incl.
Headbombsupplement - 12/06/12
bomb3rd Constitutional Complaint - ESM incl.
Headbombsupplement - 18/09/12
bomb4th Constitutional Complaint - Federal
HeadbombGouvernment against the ECB (by CJEU)
Headbomb27/09/12
Headbomb+ response of Federal
HeadbombConstitutional Court - 06/06/16
bombPress reports 27/6/12 + 24/10/12 bombSpringer complaint 28/09/11 bombDelayed insolvency bombPetition to the German Parliament 31/05/11 bombPetition to the European Parliament 21/06/11 bomb1st Letter to Members of Parliament 23/06/11 bomb2nd Letter to Members of Parliament
Headbomb26/09/11
bomb3rd Letter to Members of Parliament 19/05/12 bomb4th Letter to Members of Parliament 23/05/12 bomb5th Letter to Members of Parliament 20/06/12 bomb6th Letter to Members of Parliament 27/06/12 bomb7th Letter to the Parliament 27/9/12 bomb8th Letter to the Parliament 15/10/12 -
Headbombagainst Corruption 15/10/12 in addition to
HeadbombPetition 25/03/13
bomb9th Letter to the Parliament 24/10/12 bomb10th Letter to the Parliament 05/12/12 bomb11th Letter to the Parliament - 20/05/13 bomb12th Letter to the Parliament - 16/10/13 bomb13th Letter to the Parliament - 10/12/15 bombQuestions to the Bundestag 27/28/06/12 bombTo the members of the Bundesrat 14/06/12 bombTo the minister of finance 12/06/12 bombSecond Letter to the Finance
HeadbombMinister - 27/02/15
bombObjection to Hartz IV - Judicial Review
HeadbombComplaint BVerfG
bomb1st Lawsuit against Federal government
bomb21/03/11
bomb2nd Lawsuit against Federal government
bomb05/10/11
bombOpen letter 16/18/02/11





HeadbombBILD - Pillory of Shame

These days were are concerned about refugees from Syria, and many other places, seeking asylum in our country. There are many uncertainties, a lot of aid, a lot of reports in the press. No one knows the real cost of our aid, which was forced upon us by the Merkel government on behalf of the United States. No one knows how people will be willing or able to provide aid, but we always have to keep in mind: These are people who need help. Even as policies fail, as they often do, each of us is called upon to take a position and decide whether they want to help or whether they want to treat human beings inhumanely.

The government was silent as always. It was BILD newspaper that spoke up. It planned an action that was supposed to prevent violence and prompt reflection. On 25 November 2015, the newspaper published a “Pillory of Shame.” People expressing negative opinions about foreigners were pilloried, their full names published. Their faces were recognisable. At the end of the article, BILD demanded: “Take it from here, Mr. Prosecutor.”

Legally, BILD committed an offence by calling for their prosecution because anyone publically accusing someone of a crime, although none was committed, is guilty of defamation of character. In criminal law this is called slander or libel (§§ 186, 187 StGB). In civil law it is a violation of the right to privacy, which could lead to civil actions (§1004 BGB) and claims for damages or pain and suffering (§823 I BGB). The question is, to what extent BILD’s article was defamation of character and to what extent freedom of expression.

Therefore, the Alliance for Democracy wrote a letter to the Press Council and to the Commissioner for Data Privacy and Freedom of Information asking them to make a determination in this matter.

The Press Council responded that freedom of expression must not be restricted. The meaning of the word opinion is debatable, while the definition of freedom is not. If rights were violated by the expression of an opinion it must be determined what options there are for asserting these rights.

In times of upheaval like these, in which violations of the law by the government and the eurocrats are the order of the day so that the rule of law seems to have disappeared, everything becomes politicised.

The Alliance for Democracy believes the press’s role is to influence opinions. The “Pillory of Shame” is an example of this, but it also shows that the press is beholden to the state, whose resources it uses, and this newspaper is in a position to make such an appeal to readers because it reaches all classes of readers.

It often happens that the opinions put forth are useless to the public, i.e. the reader, and their only purpose is the dumbing down of the people. This is not the case, however, with the “Pillory of Shame.” And while it is important to encourage reflection in readers so that they might take a position, we should not allow people to be pilloried, because they are entitled to their opinions. People who are willing to treat others inhumanely can serve as an example, which would also encourage reflection. Neither violence nor defamation is in the public interest, regardless of whether it is in the interests of our lost government. However, we must also not let opinions stand without an opportunity for opposing opinions. It is not right for BILD to take advantage of the situation in the name of freedom of expression.

Those named by BILD in the article who believe their rights have been violated might consider legal action. They would have to find a lawyer to represent them against BILD. As with any lawsuit, there is no telling whether this would be successful or worth the effort.

It would be interesting, however, to let the courts decide a case that pits freedom of expression against claims of rights violations. This may even be a case for the Constitutional Court.

It is our opinion at the Alliance for Democracy that if people had greater access to the Constitutional Court and were more involved in political decisions, such actions to influence opinions, which are due to the incompetence of the government, would not be necessary. Ultimately, this case demonstrates the failure of the government and its agents.
spot
spot
spot