Is it legal to display Buddhist/Hindu swastikas in Germany? In Germany, it is illegal to publicly display Nazi symbols, including the swastika. However, the swastika (and its chiral counterpart, the sauwastika) are Buddhist and Hindu religious symbols with thousands of years of history. Would it be legal in Germany for someone to display swastikas in a specifically Buddhist or Hindu religious context (e.g. incorporating them into the architecture of a Buddhist or Hindu temple)? I did a Google search and all I could find were pages talking about how the swastika wasn’t always a Nazi symbol.
Would it be legal in Germany for someone to display swastikas in a specifically Buddhist or Hindu religious context (e.g. incorporating them into the architecture of a Buddhist or Hindu temple)? Yes, it would be legal, since through the religious context it is clear that the conditions set in 86 StGB (Dissemination of propaganda material of unconstitutional organisations) are not fulfilled. The Das Buddhistische Haus in Berlin, founded in 1924, may be able to give more information about how this was delt with in the aftermath of the war. Erlaubt wurden später aber Hakenkreuze, die den Nationalsozialismus objektiv nicht befürworten: Hakenkreuz im Verbotsschild in Kunstwerken, zum Beispiel politischen Karikaturen, in Auktionskatalogen, zur Religionsausübung der Falun Gong in Deutschland, als Anti-Nazi-Symbole von antifaschistischen Gruppen zur Ablehnung rechtsextremer Organisationen und Ideologien. Damit hob der Bundesgerichtshof 2007 vorherige Urteile gegen Verwender von Antinazisymbolen auf. However, swastikas were later allowed that objectively do not support National Socialism: Swastika in the prohibition sign in works of art, for example political cartoons, in auction catalogs, for practicing Falun Gong in Germany, as anti-Nazi symbols of anti-fascist groups to reject extreme right-wing organizations and ideologies. In 2007, the Federal Court of Justice overturned previous judgments against users of anti-Nazi symbols. Sources: Swastika (in German) the English version of this article does not contain the above quoted portions Das Buddhistische Haus - Berlin Frohnau (in English) 86 / 86a StGB - Criminal Code (in English)
It is legal. What would be illegal is for a public school to promote or inhibit a religion. You can teach all sorts of facts that touch on religion (millennia of Western history) and you can e.g. survey the major religions of the worlds as a cultural phenomenon. You can use circumlocutions or proper names. It's not illegal to confess to having personal beliefs. This is about public schools, which is an arm of the government. A person who is in a school, for example a student, is not prohibited from promoting or demoting a religion, therefore a student who clearly and openly advocates the Pastafarian faith is not to be sanctioned, except insofar as the conduct is objectively disruptive. This is because the student is clearly not acting as an agent of a government institution. Things are a little murky when it comes to teachers and guest speakers. Teachers do not lose their First Amendment rights when they enter the classroom. Here is a summary of pertinent court rulings. The main principle that comes from such cases is that school districts can direct teachers to refrain from certain actions when there is a reasonable belief that the actions would run afoul of the Establishment Clause. Individual teachers have been ordered to not engage in silent reading of prayers in school (Roberts v. Madigan). Case law on guest lecturers is probably close to zero, since guest lecturers don't have the same kind of property right to be at the school expressing themselves as teachers do.
In a democratic country, they cannot be sued successfully. Freedom of speech is for the citizens, not the government. And it is a company doing the banning, not the government. So the situation is totally different in two significant ways. (That assumes laws not too different from the USA. Obviously a country might have laws that make it illegal for companies not to publish what a political party says).
The term &quot;racism&quot; is a political one, not a legal one, which refers to a belief. It is not illegal in the US, and it is a belief that is protected under the First Amendment. There is a legal construct, &quot;discrimination on the basis of race&quot;, which enters into laws. For example, you may not discriminate in employment on the basis of race: but those law don't distinguish discrimination in favor and discrimination against. Hate crimes are crimes which additionally discriminate on the basis of some protected class (see &quot;discrimination&quot;). Assaulting a person because they are white, black, Catholic, atheist, male or female is a hate crime. Everybody falls into one or more protected categories (everybody has some race, religion including lack, and sex) – hate crime laws add &quot;because of&quot;, for those extra penalties. Assalting a white, black, male or female person is not a hate crime, by itself. The government is not the only source of reigning in of speech that you don't like, in fact, it isn't way of suppressing speech that you don't like at all, at least as long as we have the First Amendment. An employer has the right to hire a racist, or to fire a racist, at least until the law changes.
You can search for study programs via Hochschulkompass. There’s essentially just the Bachelor of Laws attainable at the Fernuniversität in Hagen. You can also do the First Legal Examination there, but if you really wanna become a Volljurist, i.e. a judge or an attorney, you will inevitably have to come to Germany, because the Referendariat can only be done here. Note, AFAIK it is not necessary to be an EU citizen to study, but you have to be a German to do any of the typical legal professions here, e.g. being appointed as a judge → § 9 no. 1 DRiG. Naturalization is an entirely different issue, but I’ll rather mention that right away.
No. Only specified means of disposition of bodies are allowed by law in Kentucky and this is not one of them. The statute that applies once the body comes into the possession of a coroner is here. The statute that applies when a death appears to involve suspicious circumstances is here. Dispositions of a body that constitute the crime of "desecration of a dead body" crimes in Kentucky are described here. But, the the scenario in the question, while not within any of the clear exceptions to that particular crime, is also not clearly within the definition of that crime. Instead, it would probably be a violation of state funeral home regulations, which are mostly civil rather than criminal offenses. A subtle point is that certain transformations of a dead body such as cremation and certain kinds of treatments (such as plasticizing) that can cause a body to cease to rot also have the effect of causing the dead body to no longer count as a dead body legally for purposes of laws regulating the disposal of dead bodies. Kentucky law does not expressly authorize something quite similar to the original post which is the Tibetan Buddhist and Parsi (a.k.a. Zoroastrian) religious practice of "sky burial". But, the free exercise clause of the freedom of religion granted by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and incorporated against the states via the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (a federal statute), may either render this state prohibition unconstitutional or pre-empt it under federal law, because religious practices have greater legal protections than artistic practices. This would be a close call because sky burial can present public health risks that overcome first amendment freedom of religion rights.
To what cases is the judge referring to here? None: neither the quoted article (2023-06-02 05:57: Prozess gegen Lina E.: Stadt Leipzig verbietet Solidaritäts-Demonstration) given in the english version of Wikipedia nor the german Wikipedia version (Dresdner Linksextremismusprozess – Wikipedia uses the quote given in the english version. In the article itself, the name 'Hans Schlueter-Staats' is used only once: The arrest warrant against them will be suspended against conditions, said Hans Schlueter-Staats, presiding judge of the State Protection Chamber at the Dresden Higher Regional Court, on Wednesday evening at the end of the verdict. She only has to serve the remainder of the sentence if the verdict becomes final. Assume that, for whatever reason, someone added a fabricated quote, in the Wikipedia page, that is not contained in the given source hoping that nobody would notice (either because the reader can't read German or simply wouldn't look). It would be very strange for a judge whos primary duty, in a civil law system, is to read the law as written, to give a personal opinion about previous rulings (which was the reason I looked: to read the exact German text). Whoever fabricated that quote was obviously unaware of this or didn't care hoping that others would simply assume it to be correct due the given source of a newspaper that has a reputation as being a reliable source.
German law protects the Right of Personality, of which the Right of Publicity is a part. The Right of Publicity protects individuals from having their identity exploted for someone else's gain, without their permission. Using an individual's likeness in the way you describe would violate this, including that of non-German citizens. Depending on what you used this image for, you would potentially face a civil suit. Changing aspects so they're unrecognizable would likely depend on the specifics and intent would count. Honestly, if you're going to change them to be unrecognizable, why even bother- just create an original character. This right lasts for 10 years after the individual's death- during this time it is controlled by the deceased's estate. After 10 years, you would be able to use them this way.