article Thomas Domingo Pérez published in Las Provincias.
In Germany, back in the fifties, Erich Lüth in a newspaper published an open letter urging the cinema owners not to include in your schedule for a film director Veit Harlam, due to collaboration this with Nazism. It also recommended the audience to refrain from going to see the movie. This incitement to boycott made Harlam Lüth sued because he felt that he had voluntarily caused harm. The case was that the matter was referred to the Constitutional Court German Federal and led to a sentence in the history of European neoconstitutionalism. The Court protects Lüth finding that the boycott constituted an incitement to the lawful exercise of the right to free expression, noting that this should be accounted for courts of general jurisdiction.
Indeed, the right to freedom of expression not only protects the expression of ideas or opinions, but allows persuade, influence others intellectual. What is not protected, it also confirms our Constitutional Court, is the exercise of coercion or defamation. Incitement to boycott is lawful if freedom does not deprive the recipients of the message to follow or not the slogan, and if not based on falsehoods. In Germany the Federal Constitutional Court has been said in the statement Blinkfuer the call to boycott is lawful even if it comes from a competitor in the professional or economic great power. Look at this finding by the Court: "If the person who incited the boycott has economic power, its influence may be relevant, but this fact alone does not make incitement to boycott unacceptable. The Constitution does not prohibit who holds greater economic power to take sides in an intellectual debate of opinion. "
Inciting boycott is a perfectly lawful behavior, but can certainly rely on weak arguments, unsustainable or inconsistent and therefore flawed. On the other hand, if the boycott is intended not to buy certain products, in fact the measure could not be regarded as unfair, because those who sell only entitled to bring to market their products and not to spill lies about them or about the company that produces them. Therefore, if the consumer chooses not to violate the law and not commit any injustice. That does not mean, however, that a boycott is justified. In reaching this conclusion should discuss the reasons given for its promotion. For example, it seems reasonable not to buy products that are manufactured with highly polluting methods, or refrain from purchasing goods made in factories where working children exploited.
But these days there is talk of these cases, but the boycott of Catalan products. It has fired the warning light and voices have emerged that threaten legal action against those who urge a boycott. Click on bone, since, as just shown, this constitutes a legitimate exercise of the right to free expression. But these threats divert attention from what's important. What happens in Spain for many citizens of their own volition decided not to buy products Catalans? The boycott is primarily a measure of pressure to draw attention and get something. It is a form of expression. Well, what is happening in Spain for many citizens to resort to the boycott as a form of expression? This is what needs to be analyzed. The answer is clear: many people do not find another way to externalize their rejection of what is being promoted from Catalonia.
As noted a few weeks ago in another article, the draft statute intended to Catalonia decide how far it reaches its solidarity with the rest of Spain. The English know that their representatives will discuss a draft statute that may affect the structure of the state and will only be hoped that what comes out is why it is not unconstitutional. It seems logical that the city wants to hear your voice as effectively as possible and, therefore, resort to the boycott, to show that the welfare of a part of Spain can not be achieved apart from the rest. Some think it's an absolutely wrong idea.
The truth is that the success of the boycott of Catalan products is a symptom of the state of English society. It seems incredible that it has reached a situation where consumers can distinguish when purchased between products from different communities. It is unfortunate that this happens, but in any case I want to emphasize and defend the liberty of the citizen to decide whether to undertake or not a boycott, and that of everyone who wants to give reasons to promote or criticize.
provinces
In Germany, back in the fifties, Erich Lüth in a newspaper published an open letter urging the cinema owners not to include in your schedule for a film director Veit Harlam, due to collaboration this with Nazism. It also recommended the audience to refrain from going to see the movie. This incitement to boycott made Harlam Lüth sued because he felt that he had voluntarily caused harm. The case was that the matter was referred to the Constitutional Court German Federal and led to a sentence in the history of European neoconstitutionalism. The Court protects Lüth finding that the boycott constituted an incitement to the lawful exercise of the right to free expression, noting that this should be accounted for courts of general jurisdiction.
Indeed, the right to freedom of expression not only protects the expression of ideas or opinions, but allows persuade, influence others intellectual. What is not protected, it also confirms our Constitutional Court, is the exercise of coercion or defamation. Incitement to boycott is lawful if freedom does not deprive the recipients of the message to follow or not the slogan, and if not based on falsehoods. In Germany the Federal Constitutional Court has been said in the statement Blinkfuer the call to boycott is lawful even if it comes from a competitor in the professional or economic great power. Look at this finding by the Court: "If the person who incited the boycott has economic power, its influence may be relevant, but this fact alone does not make incitement to boycott unacceptable. The Constitution does not prohibit who holds greater economic power to take sides in an intellectual debate of opinion. "
Inciting boycott is a perfectly lawful behavior, but can certainly rely on weak arguments, unsustainable or inconsistent and therefore flawed. On the other hand, if the boycott is intended not to buy certain products, in fact the measure could not be regarded as unfair, because those who sell only entitled to bring to market their products and not to spill lies about them or about the company that produces them. Therefore, if the consumer chooses not to violate the law and not commit any injustice. That does not mean, however, that a boycott is justified. In reaching this conclusion should discuss the reasons given for its promotion. For example, it seems reasonable not to buy products that are manufactured with highly polluting methods, or refrain from purchasing goods made in factories where working children exploited.
But these days there is talk of these cases, but the boycott of Catalan products. It has fired the warning light and voices have emerged that threaten legal action against those who urge a boycott. Click on bone, since, as just shown, this constitutes a legitimate exercise of the right to free expression. But these threats divert attention from what's important. What happens in Spain for many citizens of their own volition decided not to buy products Catalans? The boycott is primarily a measure of pressure to draw attention and get something. It is a form of expression. Well, what is happening in Spain for many citizens to resort to the boycott as a form of expression? This is what needs to be analyzed. The answer is clear: many people do not find another way to externalize their rejection of what is being promoted from Catalonia.
As noted a few weeks ago in another article, the draft statute intended to Catalonia decide how far it reaches its solidarity with the rest of Spain. The English know that their representatives will discuss a draft statute that may affect the structure of the state and will only be hoped that what comes out is why it is not unconstitutional. It seems logical that the city wants to hear your voice as effectively as possible and, therefore, resort to the boycott, to show that the welfare of a part of Spain can not be achieved apart from the rest. Some think it's an absolutely wrong idea.
The truth is that the success of the boycott of Catalan products is a symptom of the state of English society. It seems incredible that it has reached a situation where consumers can distinguish when purchased between products from different communities. It is unfortunate that this happens, but in any case I want to emphasize and defend the liberty of the citizen to decide whether to undertake or not a boycott, and that of everyone who wants to give reasons to promote or criticize.
provinces
0 comments:
Post a Comment