Are virtual meetings through the freedom of assembly wegmans catering of Article 8 of the Basic Law protected? | Juraexamen.info
Study tips exam preparation casework and methodology for the first semester Oral examination clerkship reviews focus area exam report Baden-Wurttemberg wegmans catering Bavaria Berlin Brandenburg Bremen Hamburg Hesse Mecklenburg-Vorpommern Lower Saxony North Rhine-Westphalia Rhineland-Palatinate Saarland Saxony Saxony-Anhalt Schleswig-Holstein Thuringia summary examination report interview wegmans catering series All interviews Areas of Law Civil Law Terms and Conditions-law Labour doctor right BGB AT BGH Classic enrichment law of torts Succession Family Law Corporate Law IPR credit protection Tenancy Travel Law Property Law Contract Law Consumer Protection Law Construction Law ZPO Public Law Federal Constitutional wegmans catering Court landmark decisions & Classic Construction Law European Law European Law classic municipal law police and administrative law liability Constitutional Law Administrative Law Völkerrrecht criminal wegmans catering classics of BGHSt and RGSt Code of Criminal Procedure Criminal Law Criminal AT BT jurisdiction Overview Criminal Law Civil Law Public Law
The Federal Government (17/10271 BT-Drs.) represented in its response (Bundestag printed paper 17/10379, available here) to a minor fraction of the Left that initiators can not rely on "Online demonstrations" on freedom wegmans catering of assembly . To this end, the Government states:
"As regards the question of the right of assembly, it should be pointed out that a meeting within the meaning of Article 8 of the Basic Law requires the simultaneous physical presence of several people in one place. Lack physicality are virtual meetings around wegmans catering the internet, therefore, in the constitutional sense not "meetings". From the aforementioned article (www.Heise.de/tp/artikel/7/7907/1.html) no other review "results (Bundestag printed paper 17/10379, page 11, available here).
The view of the federal government - at least in its sweeping a - vulnerable. According to one view in the literature, virtual meetings, in fact, lack of physicality are no meetings within the meaning of Article 8 of the Basic Law (Klutzny, RDV 2006, 50, 51; Depenheuer, in: Maunz / durig, Article 8 paragraph 45; AG Frankfurt, MMR. 2005, 863). This will already "gather" with the term implies, the relationship with the subject "all Germans" make clear that people would have to be physically present. In the physical absence of Internet users just lay a waiver of the proof of the freedom of assembly specific form of collective exercise of fundamental rights (Kniesel, NJW 2000, 2857, 2860; force / Master, MMR 2003, 366; aA Seidel, DÖV 2002, 283, 285).
This can not be accepted in full. First, it should be noted that the Assembly term of the Basic Law is basically open with respect to the modalities of the meeting (reference omitted 69, 315, 343). The open wording of Article 8, paragraph 1 of the Basic Law sets a restrictive wegmans catering interpretation is not close. Also functional considerations do not necessarily speak against the inclusion of virtual meetings in the scope of the freedom of assembly, as a collective expression is just possible via Facebook groups or other platforms and forums. These new forms of communication should be open to the Basic Law against. Limiting factor is to be stated that a purely Internet-based movements in principle prefabricated letters of protest, such as an open letter resemble. Such kinds of protest are not covered by the scope of Article 8, paragraph 1 of the Basic Law. The level of interactivity and simultaneous virtual presence but takes daily. Many new forms of meetings in the network go already significantly higher than conventional forms of collective expression and also develop a similar group dynamics as a meeting "on the road". For example, the social network Google+ wegmans catering sees large-scale video conferencing, called Hangouts, before. Similar functions also offer Skype and similar services. Therefore, you should at least do not exclude a flat rate of new forms of virtual protest from the scope of freedom of assembly, but decide case by case whether the backgrounds got on the net group compared to a traditional meeting with the simultaneous physical presence wegmans catering to be functionally equivalent can be considered.
Even if you do not want to follow, it can not be excluded by the protection of freedom of assembly wegmans catering se in actions on the Internet: It is stRspr. of the Constitutional Court that Article 8 I GG is not merely the holding of a meeting, but also the necessary preparatory actions wegmans catering for "gathering together" protects (BVerfGE 69, 315, 349, 84, 203, 209). Thus, the scope of Article 8, paragraph 1 of the Basic Law includes not only the actual assembly implementing all Maßn necessary for the realization
Study tips exam preparation casework and methodology for the first semester Oral examination clerkship reviews focus area exam report Baden-Wurttemberg wegmans catering Bavaria Berlin Brandenburg Bremen Hamburg Hesse Mecklenburg-Vorpommern Lower Saxony North Rhine-Westphalia Rhineland-Palatinate Saarland Saxony Saxony-Anhalt Schleswig-Holstein Thuringia summary examination report interview wegmans catering series All interviews Areas of Law Civil Law Terms and Conditions-law Labour doctor right BGB AT BGH Classic enrichment law of torts Succession Family Law Corporate Law IPR credit protection Tenancy Travel Law Property Law Contract Law Consumer Protection Law Construction Law ZPO Public Law Federal Constitutional wegmans catering Court landmark decisions & Classic Construction Law European Law European Law classic municipal law police and administrative law liability Constitutional Law Administrative Law Völkerrrecht criminal wegmans catering classics of BGHSt and RGSt Code of Criminal Procedure Criminal Law Criminal AT BT jurisdiction Overview Criminal Law Civil Law Public Law
The Federal Government (17/10271 BT-Drs.) represented in its response (Bundestag printed paper 17/10379, available here) to a minor fraction of the Left that initiators can not rely on "Online demonstrations" on freedom wegmans catering of assembly . To this end, the Government states:
"As regards the question of the right of assembly, it should be pointed out that a meeting within the meaning of Article 8 of the Basic Law requires the simultaneous physical presence of several people in one place. Lack physicality are virtual meetings around wegmans catering the internet, therefore, in the constitutional sense not "meetings". From the aforementioned article (www.Heise.de/tp/artikel/7/7907/1.html) no other review "results (Bundestag printed paper 17/10379, page 11, available here).
The view of the federal government - at least in its sweeping a - vulnerable. According to one view in the literature, virtual meetings, in fact, lack of physicality are no meetings within the meaning of Article 8 of the Basic Law (Klutzny, RDV 2006, 50, 51; Depenheuer, in: Maunz / durig, Article 8 paragraph 45; AG Frankfurt, MMR. 2005, 863). This will already "gather" with the term implies, the relationship with the subject "all Germans" make clear that people would have to be physically present. In the physical absence of Internet users just lay a waiver of the proof of the freedom of assembly specific form of collective exercise of fundamental rights (Kniesel, NJW 2000, 2857, 2860; force / Master, MMR 2003, 366; aA Seidel, DÖV 2002, 283, 285).
This can not be accepted in full. First, it should be noted that the Assembly term of the Basic Law is basically open with respect to the modalities of the meeting (reference omitted 69, 315, 343). The open wording of Article 8, paragraph 1 of the Basic Law sets a restrictive wegmans catering interpretation is not close. Also functional considerations do not necessarily speak against the inclusion of virtual meetings in the scope of the freedom of assembly, as a collective expression is just possible via Facebook groups or other platforms and forums. These new forms of communication should be open to the Basic Law against. Limiting factor is to be stated that a purely Internet-based movements in principle prefabricated letters of protest, such as an open letter resemble. Such kinds of protest are not covered by the scope of Article 8, paragraph 1 of the Basic Law. The level of interactivity and simultaneous virtual presence but takes daily. Many new forms of meetings in the network go already significantly higher than conventional forms of collective expression and also develop a similar group dynamics as a meeting "on the road". For example, the social network Google+ wegmans catering sees large-scale video conferencing, called Hangouts, before. Similar functions also offer Skype and similar services. Therefore, you should at least do not exclude a flat rate of new forms of virtual protest from the scope of freedom of assembly, but decide case by case whether the backgrounds got on the net group compared to a traditional meeting with the simultaneous physical presence wegmans catering to be functionally equivalent can be considered.
Even if you do not want to follow, it can not be excluded by the protection of freedom of assembly wegmans catering se in actions on the Internet: It is stRspr. of the Constitutional Court that Article 8 I GG is not merely the holding of a meeting, but also the necessary preparatory actions wegmans catering for "gathering together" protects (BVerfGE 69, 315, 349, 84, 203, 209). Thus, the scope of Article 8, paragraph 1 of the Basic Law includes not only the actual assembly implementing all Maßn necessary for the realization
No comments:
Post a Comment