Satire verboten: Pope vs German magazine

[Penguin]

[....]
On Tuesday, a state court in Hamburg issued a temporary injunction against the magazine, a court spokesperson said. Under threat of a fine, Titanic is no longer allowed to distribute the issue and the picture is not allowed to be published on the Internet. Issues already in circulation, however, don't have to be recalled, the court ruled.
In the current cover, Pope Benedict appears in a religious cassock that is soiled yellow below the waist. Above the picture appears the headline "Hallelujah in the Vatican: The leak has been found!" On the back cover of the issue, the pope appears from behind and the stains are brown rather than yellow.
[...]

Read the full story here

The answer from Titanic's editor-in-.chief is hilarious:

"Benedict must have misunderstood," says Fischer. The title, he says, merely shows a pope that had spilled his drink when celebrating with a glass of soda after the Vatileaks scandal was solved, he says. "Everyone knows that the Pope is a big fan of Fanta," says Fischer.

I have no idea of the subsim policy regarding images of stained popes, so here's a link to the front and back cover: cover

edit: added poll

Did the vatican deliberately try to get the pictures the maximum amount of publicity?
Pity the vatican isnt so keen to go to the courts over their real stains

[Betonov]

Toilet humour

But the punchline is a winner Leak found

[Buddahaid]

Well no fatwa issued. Oops, wrong fantasy league.

[nikimcbee]

Do Germans have the right to free speech? What is the law regarding this kinda stuff? (in Germany)

Do Germans have the right to free speech? What is the law regarding this kinda stuff? (in Germany)

It isn't a freedom of speech issue, its infringement of the vaticans marketing rights as their commercial image.

[Penguin]

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

Do Germans have the right to free speech? What is the law regarding this kinda stuff? (in Germany)

It's complicated. Generally speaking, freedom of speech has a much higher value in regards to what's allowed in the US than here.
Here is the relevant section. It's among the first 20 sections of the German constitution which describe the basic and unalterable rights.

Article 5 [Freedom of expression]

(1) Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing, and pictures and to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts and films shall be guaranteed. There shall be no censorship.

(2) These rights shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons, and in the right to personal honor.

(3) Art and scholarship, research, and teaching shall be free. The freedom of teaching shall not release any person from allegiance to the constitution.

You see that the conflict is between subsection 2 (personal honor of the pope) and subsection 1 (freedom of press) and 3 (freedom of art)

I haven't read the decision yet, should be available tomorrow, then I can tell more on which sections the decision is based.

So talking out of my unstained arse, I'd say the general laws, mentioned in (2) which can be used to limit free speech in this case could be in this example §103 Defamation of organs and representatives of foreign states (if the pope is considered the head of the state of Vatican) or even the blasphemy law(!), section 166. A private citizen could base his claims on section 185 or 186 - Insult/defamation.
You can find the criminal code here: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/en...tgb/index.html

[Penguin]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

It isn't a freedom of speech issue, its infringement of the vaticans marketing rights as their commercial image.

Given the number of law suits the Titanic already had, it would be foolish if they used an image of which they didn't acquire the publishing rights before.

In general, German citizens have a "right of possession" of their own picture, meaning that no pics shall be published without the person's consent. This however goes not for persons of "contemporary history", which the pope definitely is. (§22/23 KunstUrhG - sorry, no English version available online)

Altering a work from someone else to create a new (art)work, is also allowed - if there is enough "threshold of originality" - a definition that often leads to law suits. For example you are free to cover a music title without permission from the artist. In the example of the pope pic, the question is if 2 photoshop stains are enough to create a new piece of art.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

Do Germans have the right to free speech? What is the law regarding this kinda stuff? (in Germany)

Free speech is guaranteed by the Basic Law, also free press. But both get underhandedly eroded by the poltical establishement, by bringing their personnel into key positions of according organsiations, and gremia. Most obviously this is the case with the first and second channels of the state TV that gets fiannced by mandatory fees that even mjst be payed if you have not TV or TV receiver device like internet or handy (it is a 1-per-household tax, period).

However, there also is §166 of the penalty code which is called the blasphemy-paragraph over here, making it punishable to insult and berate religious confessions when the way in which it is done is disturbing public peace. - The most famous case I am aware of when this paragraph was used, dates back to the mid-80s, when a young man called the Catholic church "a criminal organisation" in a discussion. He was brought to court. However, his defence was top class and put together a written analysis of the church's historic record of conduct that made such a convincing aergument of that it was criminal and is criminal indeed, that the young man was set free and the analysis today can be bought in book form in German bookshops. It became a beststeller back then.

Also there is the EU and it's Charta of Human Rights that are legally bindingly linked and installked by the Eurpean treaty, making it mandatory for all member state to install according legislation. That charta rates any criticism of religion as a punishable offence the monent somebody complains about his relgion criticised and claiming he is insulted, because that now officially rates as "discrimination" - and that is what the charge is about then. - This European law now has been the basis for several cases in several European countries over the past couple of years, most famously the Geert Wilders casse, but there were also such courts held in several other countries, mostly against political prominents or prominent critics. It always was about Islam.

Ironically, the church is too late. Some weeks ago I found a cartoon somewhere on the German web, that in principle is a variation of the theme used for that magazine's frontpage now. If they really have such a good direct wire to God, I wonder why He has not made them aware while there was time, or why He did not take care of the offenders himself.

[Catfish]

Hilarious

(And if one would not know the pope is the pope, he would be in an asylum.)

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Pity the vatican isnt so keen to go to the courts over their real stains

Exactly!

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Penguin

Read the full story here

All I gotta say is that is one creepy looking pope you got there.