Uhm. As I read that, human dignity, an objective value, is _the protected interest that belongs to a human being._
EG, a person's entitlement to blue M&Ms is one of their interests. It is not a protected instrument. That interest does not exist independent of the person.
In that specific case, an example is given of what defending human dignity as an objective value means:
For example, in a case concerning the prohibition of so-called “peepshows,”
in which women perform striptease and other obscene acts while spectators
watch behind windows, Germany’s highest court in administrative matters decided
that peep-shows could be prohibited based on their incompatibility with human
dignity—despite the fact that the women worked there voluntarily.17 The idea behind
this ruling is that the law may protect human dignity as an objective value—even if
the individual concerned has freely chosen in favor of undignified behavior or
treatment by others.
The MUCH MORE RELEVENT section is this:
There is a second, less common way to regard human dignity as an objective
value. This context does not concern consenting individuals but rather the absence of
a particular individual whose personal human dignity is at stake. When evaluating
fictional media (comics, books, computer games, films, etc.), the media can have
content conflicting with human dignity as a value (e.g., if a computer game portrays
in detail how a human being is cruelly tortured). Under such circumstances, can
human dignity be used to justify criminal prohibitions? This is an issue that deserves
greater attention and discussion.
This essay is basically speculation on whether or not 'Human Dignity' can be treated in the fashion you suggest, as I read it, rather than an implication it is in fact treated that way by the law.
Also, these passages read to me as implying that no such interpretations of the laws currently exist:
However, one might argue that although one does not need to
protect the actors, the content itself could suffice to prohibit pornography. This
argument could also be raised against films made without real actors (e.g., computer-
animated films). The problem with this argument is that not all “obscene
material” violates human dignity as an objective value. There are images and films
on the market that do not portray women as inferior beings. Although this is a
frequent feature of pornographic material, there is no necessary connection. A
general ban of pornography cannot be justified based on the protection of human
dignity. Another possibility would be to prohibit only pornographic depictions that
are incompatible with human dignity. However, legislators would encounter great
difficulty when trying to draft such an offense, since the circumstances that make a
sexual encounter humiliating are difficult to describe in an abstract way.
Why would they speculate as to the difficulties legislators might encounter if such legislation didn't already exist?
German and Israeli law both cover fictional portrayals of sexual acts with minors.
If the depiction looks real, the prohibition could be justified because it has the
same effects that real acts have on viewers. Also, if only products showing actual
criminal abuse were prohibited, difficulties of proof would arise, since producers
could always defend themselves by falsely claiming that sexual abuse had not
actually occurred. However, pornography can also be evidently fictional, such as
when it appears in the form of drawings, cartoons, novels, and so forth.
Given that fictional portrayals are brought up specifically multiple times in the article, and the only actual prohibition discussed is against fictional portrayals of sexual acts with minors, I'm comfortable in taking that to fit with my interpretation of section 184B (2-4) of the German criminal code as being a specific clause to act when there are no 'protected legal interests' involved, and the pornography is a fictional portrayal of sexual acts with minors:
(2) Whosoever undertakes to obtain possession for another of child pornography reproducing an actual or realistic activity shall incur the same penalty.
(3) In cases under subsection (1) or subsection (2) above the penalty shall be imprisonment of six months to ten years if the offender acts on a commercial basis or as a member of a gang whose purpose is the continued commission of such offences and the child pornography reproduces an actual or realistic activity.
(4) Whosoever undertakes to obtain possession of child pornography reproducing an actual or realistic activity shall be liable to imprisonment of not more than two years or a fine. Whosoever possesses the written materials set forth in the 1st sentence shall incur the same penalty.
There is no such additional clause in section 184A. 184A only refers to protected legal interests, and my interpretation of the article you linked confirms that, at present, human dignity as a protected legal interest does not exist independent of an actual human being's human dignity, and that an actual human being's human dignity, as in the case of the peep-show women, must be threatened. It is, however, interesting to note that Germany has not prohibited recorded pornography of similar acts, which must surely be of similarly degrading and obscene nature, from being sold. Only peep shows have been banned. It takes a court ruling in a specific and limited instance to consider 'human dignity' in the fashion you imply.
Uhm. As I read that, human dignity, an objective value, is _the protected interest that belongs to a human being._
EG, a person's entitlement to blue M&Ms is one of their interests. It is not a protected instrument. That interest does not exist independent of the person.
In that specific case, an example is given of what defending human dignity as an objective value means:
The MUCH MORE RELEVENT section is this:
This essay is basically speculation on whether or not 'Human Dignity' can be treated in the fashion you suggest, as I read it, rather than an implication it is in fact treated that way by the law.
Also, these passages read to me as implying that no such interpretations of the laws currently exist:
Why would they speculate as to the difficulties legislators might encounter if such legislation didn't already exist?
Given that fictional portrayals are brought up specifically multiple times in the article, and the only actual prohibition discussed is against fictional portrayals of sexual acts with minors, I'm comfortable in taking that to fit with my interpretation of section 184B (2-4) of the German criminal code as being a specific clause to act when there are no 'protected legal interests' involved, and the pornography is a fictional portrayal of sexual acts with minors:
There is no such additional clause in section 184A. 184A only refers to protected legal interests, and my interpretation of the article you linked confirms that, at present, human dignity as a protected legal interest does not exist independent of an actual human being's human dignity, and that an actual human being's human dignity, as in the case of the peep-show women, must be threatened. It is, however, interesting to note that Germany has not prohibited recorded pornography of similar acts, which must surely be of similarly degrading and obscene nature, from being sold. Only peep shows have been banned. It takes a court ruling in a specific and limited instance to consider 'human dignity' in the fashion you imply.
Still think you have this wrong, sorry.