Slime – band jerman yang menggegar jerman
Aku tak tahu jumlah band punk dalam dunia.. mungkin kebanyakkan dari band-band ini hanya menyambung legasi , membawa lagu-lagu protes dan budaya melawan.
Namun di antara kebanyakkan mereka, SLIME adalah antara band punk yang paling aku kagumi. Band yang ditubuhkan pada 1979 dan bubar pada 1994 adalah influence kepada band-band punk di jerman.
Slime adalah band punk jerman pertama yang albumnya diharamkan..Semuanya kerana lagu Deutschland muss sterben (…damit wir leben können)” atau dalam bahasa inggerisnya “Germany must die (… so we can live)
Agak aneh untuk sebuah negara yang dianggap bebas, di mana porno adalah industri dan kugiran black metal hidup mewah dalam kereta sport … tetapi lagu punk ini dinafikan kebebasannya.
UP THE PUNK ,
HAIL the band SLIME !!!
Perbicaraan mahkamah kes ni :-
On behalf of the people
In the process
on
the constitutional complaint
| to a) | Decision of the Court of Appeal of 17 February 2000 – (4) 1 Ss 418/99 (5 / 00) -, |
| b) | the decision of the Landgericht Berlin, 24 September 1999 – (568) 81 Js 2304/97 Ns (1 / 99) -, |
| c) | the decision of the Amtsgericht Tiergarten in Berlin on 2 November 1998 – 243 Ds 38/98 – |
has the second Chamber of the First Senate of the Federal Constitutional Court by the
Judge Kühling,
Judge Jaeger
and the judge Hömig
The decision of the Court of Appeal of 17 February 2000 – (4) 1 Ss 418/99 (5 / 00) -, the decision of the Landgericht Berlin, 24 September 1999 – (568) 81 Js 2304/97 Ns (1 / 99) – and the verdict of the district court Tiergarten in Berlin on 2 November 1998 – 243 Ds 38/98 – violate the complainant’s fundamental right under Article 5, paragraph 3, sentence 1 of the Basic Law. You are hereby repealed. The case is remanded to the District Court of Tiergarten in Berlin.
The state of Berlin to pay the complainant the necessary expenses.
The value of the object of practice is on 20,000 DM (in words: twenty thousand German marks) laid down.
The complainant takes issue with his constitutional complaint against a criminal conviction for insulting the state and its symbols, § 90 a StGB. He alleges a violation of his fundamental right to freedom of art from Article 5 paragraph 3, sentence 1 GG.
I.
1. In September 1997, was held in Berlin-Kreuzberg a notified meeting under the slogan “Freedom for Ulli” to which the complainant participated as chairman. Theme of the event was the previous detention of the L. Ulrich, who was later convicted of playing the song “Germany must die” Hamburg’s punk rock group “Slime”. The rally, in which about 50 people took part, accompanied by several police officers took about 1 ½ hours, and included speech and music reviews. During the event, the complainant was an official of the police on several occasions pointed out that the said song should be played. Towards the end of the rally, the complainant still a music cassette with the song “Germany must die,” the group Slime into a music system on. This from a sound truck in high volume-played and for those in attendance, who sang along to the lyrics part, well discernible song has been found by the prosecutor and the courts following text and the complainant lodged with his constitutional complaint based on:
Where fascist rule and the multinational country,
where life and the environment not interested
where people lose all their rights,
there can only happen one more thing:
Germany must die so that we may live,
Germany must die so that we may live,
Germany must die so that we may live,
Germany must die, we can live with it.
Black is the sky and red earth,
proud [actually: gold] the hands of those big shots pigs
but the eagle crash soon
for Germany, we take you to the grave.
Where fascist rule and the multinational country,
where life and the environment not interested
where people lose all their rights,
there can only happen one more thing:
Germany must die so that we may live,
Germany must die so that we may live,
Germany must die so that we may live,
Germany must die, we can live with it.
Germany must die so that we may live,
Germany must die so that we may live,
Germany must die so that we may live,
Germany must die, we can live with it.
Where can secure the peace and anti-tank missiles,
Nuclear power plants and computers to improve the life
Armed robots everywhere
but Germany, we bring you a case.
Germany must die so that we may live,
Germany must die so that we may live,
Germany must die so that we may live,
Germany must die, we can live with it.
Germany must die so that we may live,
Germany must die so that we may live,
Germany must die so that we may live,
Germany must die, we can live with it.
Germany perish, so that we can live, Germany!
According to the findings of the district court, the song is not indicated as harmful to minors; sound recordings of which are commercially available for free.
2. The district court sentenced the appellant for an offense under § 90 a of the Criminal Code to a fine of 150 daily rates of 25 DM He was insulted by playing the song at a meeting of the Federal Republic of Germany and maliciously contemptuously. This follows from the clear wording of the lyrics and the actual circumstances of the play. Criminal liability of the complainant in accordance with § 90a para 1 of the Criminal Code was justified even if the playing of the song during the demonstration, the so-called effective range of an artwork is imputed, so that the scope of artistic freedom, which the complainant as a mere facilitator of a work of art is subject, is affected.As a rule of law, democracy, the Federal Republic of Germany wrote in their inner from the consent of its citizens is dependent inventory to a minimum of respect for these citizens to their opposite directed even to the exercise of fundamental rights, ensuring the freedom of art itself effectively. That constitutes a protected constitutionally, but also by § 90 a StGB legal interest, which is affected in this case and compared to failing to invoke the freedom of art in the particular circumstances. The appeal of the complainant against that decision was dismissed by the district court. According to the findings of fact, the complainant of a crime according to § 90a para 1 of the Criminal Code was guilty. He could not rely on the “art and expression.” The scope of these fundamental rights is limited by § 90a Abs 1 StGB. The complainant appealed to the Supreme Court turned was unsuccessful. The audit of the ruling on the only raised general BASIC SUBMISSION blanket condemnation for no error of law.
3. In his constitutional complaint, the complainant with a violation of his fundamental right under Article 5 paragraph 3, sentence 1 Basic Law by the decisions of the Court of Appeals, District Court and District Court. By playing the song at a meeting with only 50 participants the democratic order of the Federal Republic of Germany was not seriously threatened. To a restriction of his fundamental right guaranteed in principle unlimited artistic freedom his behavior in any case give no reason.
II
1. The Board accepts the constitutional complaint for decision because this is necessary to enforce the right of the complainant under Article 5 paragraph 3, sentence 1 GG shown (§ 93a para 2 letter b Federal Constitutional Court Act). The other conditions for purpose of allowing decision of Appeal pursuant to § 93 para 1 sentence 1 c BVerfGG are available.
2. The assessment of the constitutional complaint, constitutional issues are relevant to the Federal Constitutional Court has already held (see BVerfGE 30, 173 <187 et seq, 67, 213 <222 et seq, 75, 369 <376 et seq, 81, 278 < 289 et seq, 81, 298 <304 et seq).
3. The constitutional complaint is upheld in accordance with § 93 para 1 sentence 1 c BVerfGG. The decisions violate the complainant, as amended by Article 5 paragraph 3, sentence 1 Basic Law guarantees freedom of. The courts have determined the scope of this fundamental right is incorrect and does the set limits of artistic freedom in the individual is not correct.
a) The District Court and Court of Appeal following him adjusted to the views of the requirements that the appreciation of the song from the artistic freedom arise in from the outset by a narrow view of the significance and impact of this fundamental right granted unconditionally. The state court, the complainant could not on the “art or freedom of expression” invoke, as the scope of these fundamental rights through § 90a para 1 of the Criminal Code is limited. Thus it fails to recognize that the freedom of art, neither the bounds of Article 5 paragraph 2 GG nor that of Article 2 paragraph 1 sentence 2 GG apply (see BVerfGE 30, 173 <191 et seq). The freedom of art finds its limits only in the fundamental rights of third parties in other constitutionally protected property (seeBVerfGE 81, 278 <292>). Therefore, Article 5, paragraph 3, sentence 1 does GG punishment according to § 90a para 1 of the Penal Code for insulting or malicious slandering of the Federal Republic of Germany in general (cf.BVerfGE 81, 278 f., 81, 298 ff). In the light of Article 5 paragraph 3, sentence 1 GG symbols of protection should the state and its pursuant to § 90 a of the Criminal Code but not to immunize the state from criticism and even lead to rejection. Rather, it always requires a case by case-specific balancing of competing constitutional legal rights (see BVerfGE 81, 278 <294>).
b) The district court’s first true assuming that song as a work of art within the meaning of Article 5 § 3 GG to see that, and the act in respect of which the appellant was convicted, the scope of Article 5 paragraph 1 sentence 3 GG is assigned (see the following also BVerfGE 81, 298 <305 f.>).
aa) The song “Germany must die” is an art within the meaning of this fundamental right. This is clear both in purely formal approach, because the generic requirements of the plant-type “composition” and “poetry” are met, and in a more content-based definition of the concept of art. The author uses the formal language of a song about his experiences and impressions to share certain operations, which could be summarized under the heading “life-threatening circumstances in Germany.” As an evaluative narrowing the definition of art with the full guarantee of freedom of Article 5 paragraph 3, sentence 1 Basic Law is not compatible, it comes with the constitutional classification and appraisal of the “height” of the poetry does not.
bb) the freedom of art is protected through the dissemination of the song, so the effective range of the artwork.This active region is also affected (see BVerfGE 81, 298 <305 f.>). Although the song has alleged that the reason all played before, to imprisonment of another for the playback of the song to protest against. This intention and their integration into a public meeting do not alter the fact that the song itself in its effect on the audience brought to the validity and as such it was widespread. It is this act of distribution is also a cause of criminal prosecution, against which the constitutional complaint is directed.
c In its assessment of the text into account) the district court but not the art of the peculiar structural features (see BVerfGE 30, 173 <188>), thus missing a profound interpretation (cf. BVerfGE 75, 369 <376>). Hence there is a distinction between artistic freedom and conflicting constitutional values that meet the requirements of Article 5 paragraph 3, sentence 1 GG does not do justice.
aa) In its ruling court lifts the undifferentiated to the ‘hearing put wording of the incriminating words to “off,” which stated very clearly “bring,” is to improve the situation for the citizens only by the destruction of the state system of the Federal Republic of Germany to reach that should leave. ” This interpretation is the satirical, alienating and metaphorical content of the work was not evident. In the song “Germany must die” is seen a bold, dramatic criticism with satirical impact of social and political conditions in Germany. A characteristic feature of this art form is defined, with the symbolically charged image in core statement glosses over a caricature of exaggerated expressions and is, typically are also allusions to contemporary historical events and literary reminiscences. The district court would therefore have to answer the question of whether the song, the Federal Republic of Germany according to § 90 a StGB vilified in the garb hidden artistic statement in the need to identify core (see BVerfGE 75, 369 <377 f.>).
bb) The critical intent of the song is unmistakable. Significantly, though crude and simplistic, as are injustices in the fields of politics, pollution, war (missiles and tanks keep the peace) and the rapidly changing technical innovations (nuclear power plants and computers to improve life, armed robots) denounced. made responsible for the hopeless conditions of the country “Germany” is. This core statement is verse, rhyme and melody alienated and emotionally. “Germany must die so that we can live” is a popular poetic style used means by which a life of alienation and hopelessness should be taught in aggressive escalation: With the chorus line. It uses the typical song forms and contents of punk rock. In the criminal category of the song may these elements of the core statement of artistic garb are not counted.
cc) The artistic demands of the song and the resulting requirements for this claim interpretation be pregnant by a – clear literary model, which has both formal in approach and broad similarity in the imagery – far more important. In a poem published in 1844 formulated Heinrich Heine a little less radical and bitter criticism of the prevailing circumstances, and he sees his country doomed:
The Silesian Weavers
In the dark eye no tear,
They sit at the loom and gnash the teeth:
Germany, we weave your shroud,
We are weaving into the triple curse –
We are weaving, weaving!
A curse the God to whom we asked
In winter, cold and hunger;
We have hoped and waited in vain,
He has mocked us and fooled and fooled –
We are weaving, weaving!
A curse on the king, the king of the rich,
To soften our misery could not
The last penny of blackmailing us
And shoot us like dogs can –
We are weaving, weaving!
A curse on the wrong native country,
Where can thrive only shame and disgrace
Where every flower folded early
Where rot and decay refreshing the worm –
We are weaving, weaving!
The shuttle flies, the loom crashes,
We weave busy day and night –
Old Germany, we weave your shroud,
We are weaving into the triple curse
We are weaving, weaving!
dd) In order to understand the core message of the song “Germany must die” in a reasonable way of artistic freedom may also be a time of historical reference can not be hidden, had was made by the complainant in this case. In Hamburg, where the song was created, there is a monument inaugurated in 1936 for the Hanseatic Infantry Regiment No. 76, which bears the inscription “Germany must live, and die if we must.” These lines go on a poem by Heinrich Lersch, entitled “Soldiers Farewell” back, which shortly after the outbreak of the 1st World War was created. Beginning of the 80 years he had a wide public, some emotional confrontation with the “76-he Monument” and used a situated in the immediate vicinity “counter monument” by Alfred Hrdlicka. The Hamburg-based punk rock band Slime had then these issues addressed in their song and the provocative antithesis “die Germany must, so we can live” opposed to in times of National Socialism monument honors have come saying “Germany must live, and die if we must.”
ee) Since the district court already with his assessment of the core message of the song falls short, can be left open if it determines the limits of freedom in the art as a “weapon” used track true. In addition to be drawn to the following: a threat to the existence of the constitutionally democracy in the Federal Republic of Germany, as there is a constitutionally protected right, in principle justify a restriction on the freedom of. But whether, as the district court said, which seems due respect to citizens already by the unique play a three-minute song in 50 meeting participants, who apparently knew throughout the song already and sang along, can be eroded and undermined, at least doubtful.
4. The decision of the Appeal Court and the judgments of the District Court and District Court are set aside and the case is remanded to the district court (§ 95 para 2 Federal Constitutional Court Act).
The decision on the reimbursement of necessary expenses of the complainant is based on § 34a para 2 Federal Constitutional Court Act, the setting value of the subject to § 113 paragraph 2 sentence 3
Adiospunk 