untrue statements of fact are not protected by freedom of expression.
The road to this simple insight can be quite difficult as this decision of the BGH, 20.11.2007 - VI ZR 144/07 - shows.
In quoting the defendant had the text of a statement made by an industry information service, incorrect played. The defendant was using the expression "Bauernfängerei" gives the impression that information he cited Journal of the process the applicant's funding model had criticized in this way. The statement objected to was there, but in a different context, referring to the supposedly short subscription period for shares of the applicant.
The applicant seeks, therefore, order the defendant to refrain from the assertion that the industry information service "..." have the funding process model referred to as the applicant Bauernfängerei.
The dispute went to the Federal Constitutional Court (in detail: Landgericht Frankfurt am Main, Judgement of 23.01.2003 - 2 / 3 0 499/00, OLG Frankfurt am Main, Judgement of 25.09.2003 - 16 U 15/03; BGH, Judgement of 16.11.2004 - VI ZR 298/03, 1st Appeal of the Federal Constitutional Court, decision of 08.05.2007 - 1 BvR 193/05).
The court now had the last word and found:
The defendant is not allowed to express his opinion on the legal financing model of the applicant but it is the wrong, to prohibit a document location provided assertion that the industry information service ".. . had expressed himself in this way on the model of the applicant. Incorrect items are not covered with the protective purpose of Article 5 paragraph 1 sentence 1 GG. On the play proved untrue facts, there is no legitimate Interest (Senate verdict BGHZ 139, 95, 101 f.; ff cf. BVerfGE 54, 208, 217, 61, 1, 8, 90, 241, 248 f., 253 with further references). That finding is not from the perspective of freedom of occupation (Article 12 paragraph 1 sentence 1 GG) or the academic freedom (Article 5 § 3 GG).
( BGH, Judgement of 20.11.2007 - VI ZR 144/07 )
0 comments:
Post a Comment