Law and Protest at the Periphery of Democracy

Dr. Katharina Braun

doi:10.5771/9783748919957

Summary

When animal rights activists enter farms or laboratories, they pose particular challenges for the law. How can the ethical motives of the activists be adequately taken into account in the legal assessment without giving them carte blanche for otherwise unlawful behaviour? This dissertation analyses, evaluates and compares the legislation and jurisprudence in Germany and other jurisdictions, particularly in the United States. In so doing, it incorporates the findings and methods of political theory alongside the legal assessment. The principles developed lay a foundation for a nuanced legal assessment of protest movements and methods on the limits of legality.

Keywords

Search publication

Bibliographic data

Copyright year: 2024
ISBN-Print: 978-3-7560-1458-3
ISBN-Online: 978-3-7489-1995-7
Publisher: Nomos, Baden-Baden
Series: Beiträge zum ausländischen öffentlichen Recht und Völkerrecht
Volume: 337
Language: English
Pages: 395
Product type: Book Titles

Titelei/InhaltsverzeichnisPages 1 - 18 Download chapter (PDF)
Download chapter (PDF)
1. 1. 1.1 Placing the Dissertation in the Field of Animal Studies
  2. 1.2 Research Questions and Claims
  3. 1.3 Plan of the Dissertation
2. 1. 2.1 Definitions
  2. 2.2 Normative Jurisprudence
  3. 2.3 Discourse Theory and Discourse Analysis
  4. 2.4 Critical Legal Theory
  5. 2.5 Comparative Law
  6. 2.6 The Role of Political Philosophy: Normative Reconstruction
3. 1. 3.1 Defining Deliberative Democracy
  2. 3.2 Chances and Limits of Considering Deliberative Democracy in Animal Studies
  3. 3.3 Deliberative Democracy in the Context of Animal Activism and Undercover Footage
  4. 3.4 Deliberative Democracy and the Law
4. 1. 4.1 Why? The Theories Behind Animal Activism
  2. 4.2 How? The Strategies of Animal Activists
  3. 4.3 The Case of Undercover Footage
  4. 4.4 Why not Whistleblowing?
  5. 4.5 Gaps in the Existing Research
Download chapter (PDF)
1. 1. 1. 5.1.1 Background and Facts
    2. 5.1.2 The Case Against Tierbefreier in the Context of Parallel Proceedings
    3. 5.1.3 Applicable Law
    4. 5.1.4 Münster District Court Decision
    5. 5.1.5 Hamm Regional Court Decision
    6. 5.1.6 ECtHR Decision
  2. 1. 5.2.1 Defining the ‘Rules of the Intellectual Battle of Ideas’
    2. 5.2.2 The Intellectual Battle of Ideas
    3. 5.2.3 Animal Activists and Deliberative Democracy
    4. 1. 5.2.4.1 Disproportionate Effects on Political Minorities and Animal Activists
      2. 5.2.4.2 Furthering Deliberation Through Non-Deliberative Acts
      3. 5.2.4.3 Why resort to the ‘rules of the intellectual battle of ideas?’
  3. 5.3 Summary and Main Findings
  4. 5.4 Conclusion and Outlook
2. 1. 1. 6.1.1 Background and Facts
    2. 6.1.2 Procedural History and Applicable Law
    3. 6.1.3 Arguments of the Parties
    4. 6.1.4 Hamburg District Court Decision and the Wallraff/Springer Test
    5. 6.1.5 Federal Court of Justice Decision
    6. 6.1.6 Implications for the Link Between Animal Welfare and Freedom of Expression
    7. 6.1.7 Links to Other Relevant Cases
  2. 1. 6.2.1 The Public Watchdog in the Jurisprudence of German Courts
    2. 6.2.2 The Public Watchdog in the Jurisprudence of the ECtHR
    3. 6.2.3 Duties and Responsibilities of the ‘Public Watchdog’ in the Jurisprudence of the ECtHR
    4. 6.2.4 Tracing the Differences Between the Domestic and the ECtHR System
  3. 1. 6.3.1 Democratic Journalism Theory
    2. 6.3.2 The Functions Ascribed to the Media in Different Models of Democracy
    3. 1. 6.3.3.1 The Revelation of Public Grievances: Accountability
      2. 6.3.3.2 Imparting Information
      3. 6.3.3.3 Contributing to the Public Formation of Opinion and the Intellectual Battle of Ideas
    4. 6.3.4 Deliberative vs. Participatory Democracy and Ethics of Journalism
  4. 6.4 Conclusion and Agenda for Further Research
Download chapter (PDF)
1. 1. 7.1 Why Civil Disobedience Matters
  2. 7.2 Considering Trespass as Civil Disobedience
  3. 1. 7.3.1 Extending the Rawlsian-Liberal Approach
    2. 1. 7.3.2.1 Daniel Markovits: Democratic Disobedience
      2. 7.3.2.2 William Smith: The Deliberative Account
  4. 7.4 Summary and Conclusion
2. 1. 1. 1. 8.1.1.1 Background and Facts
      2. 8.1.1.2 Procedural History
      3. 8.1.1.3 No Self Defense/ Defense of Others Justification
      4. 8.1.1.4 No Necessity Justification
      5. 8.1.1.5 The Court’s Reasoning Comprised
    2. 1. 8.1.2.1 The Epistemic Gap and Related Empirical Matters
      2. 8.1.2.2 The Democratic Legitimacy of Animal Welfare Law and its Enforcement
  2. 1. 1. 8.2.1.1 Background and Facts
      2. 8.2.1.2 Applicable Law
      3. 8.2.1.3.1 Defense of Others Justification
        8.2.1.3.2 Necessity Justification
    2. 1. 8.2.2.1 A Blueprint for Civil Disobedience?
      2. 8.2.2.2 Magdeburg District Court and the Extended Liberal Approach
      3. 8.2.2.3 Naumburg Regional Court and the Democratic Approaches
  3. 8.3 Conclusion
3. 1. 9.1 Civil Disobedience and German Courts
  2. 9.2 Legally Justified Civil Disobedience – A Contradiction?
  3. 9.3 Civil Disobedience and the Elements of a Crime
  4. 1. 9.4.1 Justifications from Constitutional Law
    2. 1. 9.4.2.1 Necessity
      2. 9.4.2.2 Safeguarding Legitimate Interests
      3. 9.4.2.3 Summary: Legal Justifications for Civil Disobedience
  5. 9.5 Legal Excuses for Civil Disobedience
  6. 9.6 Legally Relevant Errors: Putative State of Necessity and Error of Law
  7. 9.7 Prosecutorial Discretion
  8. 9.8 Sentencing
  9. 9.9 Civil Disobedience and the Law in the United States
  10. 9.10 Conclusion
  11. 9.11 Outlook
Download chapter (PDF)
1. 1. 10.1 Introduction
  2. 10.2 Defining Ag-Gag
  3. 1. 10.3.1 Prohibition of Recording
    2. 10.3.2 Employment Fraud
    3. 10.3.3 Rapid Reporting
  4. 10.4 Litigation
  5. 1. 10.5.1 Background and Facts
    2. 10.5.2 Procedural History and ALDF v. Otter
    3. 10.5.3 Applicable Law
    4. 1. 10.5.4.1 Misrepresentation to Gain Entry
      2. 10.5.4.2 Obtaining Records by Misrepresentation
      3. 10.5.4.3 Obtaining Employment by Misrepresentation
      4. 10.5.4.4 Recordings Provision
      5. 10.5.4.5 Equal Protection Clause
      6. 10.5.4.6 Separate Opinion of Judge Bea, Dissenting in Part and Concurring in Part
  6. 1. 1. 10.6.1.1 Meaning of the Court of Public Opinion
      2. 10.6.1.2 The Rules of the Intellectual Battle of Ideas in the Court of Public Opinion
    2. 1. 10.6.2.1 Frye: From the Public Sphere to the Public Screen and the Politics of Preemption
      2. 10.6.2.2 Marceau and Chen: Translating First Amendment Theory into Legal Doctrine
      3. 10.6.2.3 Gelber and O’Sullivan: Democratic Arguments for Free Speech
      4. 10.6.2.4 Common Elements
    3. 10.6.3 Conclusion: Brushing over Democracy
  7. 1. 10.7.1 Agonism, Activism, and Ag-Gag
    2. 10.7.2 Legal Implications
2. 1. 1. 11.1.1 Ag-Gag Legislation
    2. 11.1.2 Litigation
    3. 11.1.3 Public Interest and Journalism
  2. 11.2 Ag-Gag in Canada
  3. 11.3 Conclusion
3. 1. 12.1 Introduction
  2. 1. 12.2.1 Legislation Targeting Animal Activists
    2. 12.2.2 The Role of the Criminal Law
    3. 12.2.3 Animal Welfare as a Matter of Public Interest
    4. 12.2.4 Privileges Conferred to the Media and Journalism
    5. 12.2.5 Public Interest and Journalism in Australia and in the United States
    6. 12.2.6 Differentiating Between Legal and Illegal Conditions in Animal Facilities
    7. 12.2.7 Rights and Values Invoked in the Context of Undercover Footage
    8. 12.2.8 Connection to Animal and Environmental Terrorism
    9. 12.2.9 Deliberative Democracy vs. (Ant)agonistic Politics
  3. 1. 1. 12.3.1.1 Importance of Agriculture
      2. 12.3.1.2 Lobbyism and the American Legislative Exchange Council
      3. 12.3.1.3 Traditions of Animal Activism
      4. 12.3.1.4 Public Discourse on Animal Activism and Undercover Footage
    2. 1. 12.3.2.1 The Legal Status of Animals and the Animal Welfare State Objective
      2. 12.3.2.2 Structure of the Criminal Code
      3. 12.3.2.3 Private/ Public Boundaries, Criminal Law, and the Public Interest
    3. 1. 12.3.3.1 Varying Support for Deliberative Democracy
      2. 12.3.3.2 The Relationship Between Democracy and Fundamental Rights in Law
      3. 12.3.3.3 The Role of Courts
      4. 12.3.3.4 Animal Activism in Comparison to (Other) Non-Violent Political Extremism
  4. 1. 12.4.1 Future Legal Responses to Undercover Footage in Germany
    2. 12.4.2 Future Legal Responses to Undercover Footage in the United States
    3. 12.4.3 Future Legal Responses to Undercover Footage in Australia and in Canada
4. 1. 1. 1. 13.1.1.1 Animal Activists’ Enjoyment of Freedom of Expression
      2. 13.1.1.2 Criminal Sanctions
      3. 13.1.1.3 Democratic Engagement
    2. 1. 13.1.2.1 The Value of Employing Democratic Theory to Explain and Evaluate Legal Responses to Animal Activism
      2. 13.1.2.2.1 Going Beyond the Traditional Conception of Deliberative Democracy
        13.1.2.2.2 Mitigating Distinctions Between Journalists and Activists
      3. 13.1.2.3 Insights from Democratic Approaches to Civil Disobedience
      4. 13.1.2.4 Recognizing Civil Disobedience in Cases Against Animal Activists
      5. 13.1.2.5 Addressing Tensions between Moral and Legal Evaluation through Civil Disobedience
    3. 1. 13.1.3.1 Explaining the Relevant Differences
      2. 13.1.3.2 Agonism vs. Deliberative Democracy
  2. 13.2 Outlook
BibliographyPages 365 - 378 Download chapter (PDF)
Download chapter (PDF)
1. International Treaties
2. 1. Australia
  2. Canada
  3. Germany
  4. Switzerland
  5. United States
3. Other Materials
4. Newspaper Articles and Other Media Sources
Download chapter (PDF)
1. 1. Court of Justice of the European Union
  2. European Court of Human Rights
2. 1. Australia
  2. Austria
  3. Germany
  4. Switzerland
  5. United States