谁能谈论堕胎?信息，冒犯，言论自由，以及德国的广告禁令

IF 2.1 3区社会学 Q2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

Politics Pub Date : 2021-06-28 DOI:10.1177/02633957211024489

Alexej Ulbricht

{"title":"谁能谈论堕胎?信息，冒犯，言论自由，以及德国的广告禁令","authors":"Alexej Ulbricht","doi":"10.1177/02633957211024489","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the debate in Germany on Article 219a of the criminal law, which prohibits doctors from advertising for abortions. This ban prevents advertising for abortions on the grounds that it would be offensive, while defining ‘advertising’ so broadly that it prevents doctors from publicly providing any information about abortions. The article offers an overview of the law, as well as the controversy following the conviction of General Practitioner Kristina Hänel, which led to a reform of the law. The curtailment of the provision of factual information by medical professionals is contrasted with the freedom of speech protection given to highly offensive speech acts by anti-abortion activists. The argument is made that there is a Christian perfectionism at the heart of the law on abortion in Germany that is shared by anti-abortion activists, leading to a situation that facilitates the mobilisation of anti-abortion sentiment while curtailing the freedom of speech of doctors.","PeriodicalId":47206,"journal":{"name":"Politics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/02633957211024489","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Who can talk about abortion? Information, offence, freedom of speech, and the advertising ban in Germany\",\"authors\":\"Alexej Ulbricht\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/02633957211024489\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article examines the debate in Germany on Article 219a of the criminal law, which prohibits doctors from advertising for abortions. This ban prevents advertising for abortions on the grounds that it would be offensive, while defining ‘advertising’ so broadly that it prevents doctors from publicly providing any information about abortions. The article offers an overview of the law, as well as the controversy following the conviction of General Practitioner Kristina Hänel, which led to a reform of the law. The curtailment of the provision of factual information by medical professionals is contrasted with the freedom of speech protection given to highly offensive speech acts by anti-abortion activists. The argument is made that there is a Christian perfectionism at the heart of the law on abortion in Germany that is shared by anti-abortion activists, leading to a situation that facilitates the mobilisation of anti-abortion sentiment while curtailing the freedom of speech of doctors.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47206,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Politics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-06-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/02633957211024489\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Politics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/02633957211024489\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Politics","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02633957211024489","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

本文考察了德国关于刑法第219a条的辩论，该条禁止医生为堕胎做广告。这项禁令禁止为堕胎做广告，理由是它会令人反感，同时对“广告”的定义如此宽泛，以至于阻止医生公开提供任何有关堕胎的信息。这篇文章概述了法律，以及全科医生Kristina Hänel被定罪后引发的争议，这导致了法律的改革。限制医疗专业人员提供事实性信息与对反堕胎活动分子的极具攻击性的言论行为给予言论自由的保护形成鲜明对比。有人认为，德国堕胎法的核心是基督教的完美主义，反堕胎活动人士也认同这一观点，这导致了一种局面，这种局面有利于动员反堕胎情绪，同时限制了医生的言论自由。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Who can talk about abortion? Information, offence, freedom of speech, and the advertising ban in Germany

This article examines the debate in Germany on Article 219a of the criminal law, which prohibits doctors from advertising for abortions. This ban prevents advertising for abortions on the grounds that it would be offensive, while defining ‘advertising’ so broadly that it prevents doctors from publicly providing any information about abortions. The article offers an overview of the law, as well as the controversy following the conviction of General Practitioner Kristina Hänel, which led to a reform of the law. The curtailment of the provision of factual information by medical professionals is contrasted with the freedom of speech protection given to highly offensive speech acts by anti-abortion activists. The argument is made that there is a Christian perfectionism at the heart of the law on abortion in Germany that is shared by anti-abortion activists, leading to a situation that facilitates the mobilisation of anti-abortion sentiment while curtailing the freedom of speech of doctors.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Politics Multiple-

CiteScore

5.50

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： Politics publishes cutting-edge peer-reviewed analysis in politics and international studies. The ethos of Politics is the dissemination of timely, research-led reflections on the state of the art, the state of the world and the state of disciplinary pedagogy that make significant and original contributions to the disciplines of political and international studies. Politics is pluralist with regards to approaches, theories, methods, and empirical foci. Politics publishes articles from 4000 to 8000 words in length. We welcome 3 types of articles from scholars at all stages of their careers: Accessible presentations of state of the art research; Research-led analyses of contemporary events in politics or international relations; Theoretically informed and evidence-based research on learning and teaching in politics and international studies. We are open to articles providing accounts of where teaching innovation may have produced mixed results, so long as reasons why these results may have been mixed are analysed.