¹ Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG – Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 1 BvR 2150/08, paras. 1–110, 4 Nov. 2009, available at http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/entscheidungen/rs20091104_1bvr215008.html [hereinafter Wunsiedel]. A press release in English is available at http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/pressemitteilungen/bvg09-129en.html.Google Scholar

² Strafgesetzbuch [StGB - Criminal Code], 15 May 1871, Reichsgesetzblatt [RGBl.] at 127, § 130(4).Google Scholar

³ Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland [GG - Basic Law], 23 May 1949, Bundesgesetzblatt [BGBl.] 1, available at http://www.bundestag.de/dokumente/rechtsgrundlagen/grundgesetz/gg.html. An English version is available at https://www.btg-bestellservice.de/pdf/80201000.pdf.Google Scholar

⁴ Gesetz über Versammlungen und Aufzüge [VersammlG - Assembly Act], 24 July 1953, Bundesgesetzblatt, Teil I [BGBl. l] at 684, § 15(1).Google Scholar

⁵ Wunsiedel, supra note 1, at para. 6.Google Scholar

⁶ Id. at paras. 7–22.Google Scholar

⁷ Verwaltungsgericht Bayreuth [VG – Local Administrative Court], Case No. B 1 K 05.768, 9 May 2006.Google Scholar

⁸ Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof [BayVGH – Bavarian Administrative Court of Appeals], Case No. B 1 K 05.768, 26 Mar. 2007.Google Scholar

⁹ Bundesverwaltungsgericht [BVerwG – Federal Administrative Court], Case No. 6 C 21.07, 25 June 2008, 131 BVerfGE 216.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Wunsiedel, supra note 1, at paras. 23–27. The complainant also argued a violation of his rights under the European Convention on Human Rights but the Constitutional Court found the complaint to be unsubstantiated and therefore inadmissible in this regard. See id. at para. 46.Google Scholar

¹¹ See BVerfG, Case No. 1 BvQ 34/09, 10 Aug. 2009; BVerfG Case No. 1 BvR 2102/08, 13 Aug. 2008; BVerfG, Case No. 1 BvR 2075/07, 13 Aug. 2007; BVerfG, Case No. 1 BvQ 25/06, 14 Aug. 2006; BVerfG, Case No. 1 BvQ 25/05, 16 Aug. 2005.Google Scholar

¹² Wunsiedel, supra note 1, at paras. 43–44.Google Scholar

¹³ See Donald P. Kommers, The Constitutional Jurisprudence of the Federal Republic of Germany 360–442 (2d ed. 1997) for an overview of freedom of speech doctrine under the German Basic Law.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Wunsiedel, supra note 1, at paras. 49–50.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Id. at para. 51.Google Scholar

¹⁶ See, e.g., Volker Epping, Grundrechte 105 (4th ed. 2010).Google Scholar

¹⁷ Kurt Häntzschel, Das Recht der freien Meinungsäuβerung, in 2 Handbuch des Deutschen Staatsrechts 651, 661 (Gerhard Anschütz & Richard Thoma eds., 1932).Google Scholar

¹⁸ Rudolf Smend, Staatsrechtliche Abhandlungen und andere Aufsätze 98 (3d ed. 1994); Rudolf Smend, Das Recht der freien Meinungsäuβerung, in 4 Veröffentlichungen der Vereinigung der Deutschen Staatsrechtslehrer 44, 52 (1928).Google Scholar

¹⁹ See Epping, supra note 16, at 103–4.Google Scholar

²⁰ Wunsiedel, supra note 1, at paras. 54–60.Google Scholar

²¹ See GG, 23 May 1949, BGBl. Art. 3(3) (“No person shall be favored or disfavored because of sex, parentage, race, language, homeland and origin, faith, or religious or political opinions. No person shall be disfavored because of disability.”)Google Scholar

²² Wunsiedel, supra note 1, at para. 61.Google Scholar

²³ Id. at paras. 62–63.Google Scholar

²⁴ Id. at paras. 64–68.Google Scholar

²⁵ Id. at para. 67.Google Scholar

²⁶ See GG, 23 May 1949, BGBl. Arts. 9(2), 18, 21(2).Google Scholar

²⁷ See, e.g., 109 BVerfGE 279, 335; 115 BVerfGE 320, 345.Google Scholar

²⁸ Wunsiedel, supra note 1, at paras. 71–72.Google Scholar

²⁹ Id. at para. 74.Google Scholar

³⁰ Id. Google Scholar

³¹ Id. at paras. 76–79.Google Scholar

³² Id. at paras. 77.Google Scholar

³³ Id. at paras. 78.Google Scholar

³⁴ Id. at paras. 81.Google Scholar

³⁵ The Court further held that § 130(4) of the Criminal Code did not violate Article 3(3) of the Basic Law which prohibits discrimination on the basis of political opinions. It also found no violation of Article 103(2) of the Basic Law which demands that criminal convictions have to be based on a concrete statutory prohibition. Finally, it held that the application of § 130(4) of the Criminal Code in the concrete case did not raise any doubts with regard to its constitutionality. Id. at paras. 86–110.Google Scholar

³⁶ See Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 37 (1949) (Jackson, J., dissenting) (discussing the truism that a constitution is not a suicide pact).Google Scholar

³⁷ See Markus Thiel, Germany, in The “Militant Democracy” Principle in Modern Democracies 109 (Markus Thiel ed., 2009). For an early elaboration of the concept of militant democracy, see also Karl Loewenstein, Verfassungslehre 348–357 (2d ed. 1969); Karl Loewenstein, Militant Democracy and Fundamental Rights, I, 31 Am. Pol. Sci. Rev. 417 (1937); Karl Loewenstein, Militant Democracy and Fundamental Rights, II, 31 Am. Pol. Sci. Rev. 638 (1937).Google Scholar

³⁸ See Frederick Schauer, Freedom of Expression Adjudication in Europe and the United States: A Case Study in Comparative Constitutional Architecture, in European and US Constitutionalism 49 (Georg Nolte ed., 2005) (comparing American and European approaches to freedom of expression); Georg Nolte, Beleidigungsschutz in der freiheitlichen Demokratie (Springer 1992) (comparing the different treatment of defamation laws).Google Scholar

³⁹ Kommers, supra note 13, at 360.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Ronald J. Krotoszynski, Jr., A Comparative Perspective on the First Amendment: Free Speech, Militant Democracy, and the Primacy of Dignity as a Preferred Constitutional Value in Germany, 78 Tul. L. Rev. 1549 (2004).Google Scholar

⁴¹ Wunsiedel, supra note 1, at paras. 49–50; see also Lothar Michael, Die wehrhafte Demokratie als verfassungsimmanente Schranke der Meinungsfreiheit, 3 Zeitschrift für das Juristische Studium 155, 157 (2010) (appraising the broad approach of the Court).Google Scholar

⁴² Krotoszynski, supra note 40, at 1554.Google Scholar

⁴³ See Christoph Degenhart, Anmerkung, 65 Juristenzeitung 306, 310 (Mar. 2010).Google Scholar

⁴⁴ BVerwG, Case No. 6 C 21.07, 25 June 2008, 131 BVerwGE 216.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ See Jan Philipp Schaefer, Wie viel Freiheit für die Gegner der Freiheit? Zum Wunsiedel-Beschluss des Bundesverfassungsgerichts, 9 Die Öffentliche Verwaltung 379, 384–386 (2010) (providing a critical view).Google Scholar

⁴⁶ See, e.g., Roman Herzog, Article 5(2), in Kommentar zum Grundgesetz para. 245 (Theodor Maunz & Günther Dürig eds., 1973).Google Scholar

⁴⁷ See, e.g., Oberverwaltungsgericht Nordrhein-Westfalen [OVG NRW] [North Rhine-Westphalia Administrative Court of Appeals], Neue Juristische Wochenschrift [NJW] 90 (2004); OVG NRW, NJW 2814 (2004); OVG NRW, NJW 1577 (2003); OVG NRW, NJW 2111 (2001); OVG NRW, NJW 2113 (2001); OVG NRW, NJW 2114 (2001).Google Scholar

⁴⁸ See, e.g., BVerfG, Case No. 1 BvQ 19/04, 23 June 2004, 111 BVerfGE 147, 157.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ See, e.g., Hans Dieter Jarass & Bodo Pieroth, Article 139, in Kommentar zum Grundgesetz para. 1 (Hans Dieter Jarass & Bodo Pieroth eds., 10th ed. 2009).Google Scholar

⁵⁰ See Degenhart, supra note 43, at 309.Google Scholar

⁵¹ See Schaefer, supra note 45, at 386–387.Google Scholar

⁵² See Uwe Volkmann, Die Geistesfreiheit und der Ungeist – Der Wunsiedel-Beschluss des BVerfG, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 417, 419 (2010) (expressing similar doubts).Google Scholar

⁵³ See Schaefer, supra note 45, at 386.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Wunsiedel, supra note 1, at paras. 72–73.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ See Degenhart, supra note 43, at 310; Volkmann, supra note 52, at 419–420.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ See Volkmann, supra note 52, at 420.Google Scholar