Caricature in the Case Law of the Czech Constitutional Court: Protection of Dignity versus Freedom of Expression
Abstract
Political caricature represents a highly specific form of the realisation of freedom of expression, the adequate reflexion of which requires a specific preunderstanding of the addressee concerning the meaning and aim of the caricature. In this regard we can consider caricature as culturally conditioned.
Its current usage is therefore increasingly confronted with the limits consisting in the cultural diversity of society as well as with the expanding limitation on freedom of expression due to the emphasis on the importance of other conflicting rights, notably the right to human dignity. This paper analyses the presence of the latter limit in the case law of the Czech Constitutional Court by comparing this case law with decisions of the German Federal Constitutional Court and the US Supreme Court.
Despite the fact that the case law of both foreign courts can be considered as substantially different, it in both cases reflects deeper normative ideas on the substance of human dignity of public persons participating in the political discourse. To the contrary, the Czech case law can be considered as inconsistent and leading from one extreme interpretation to another.
Such an approach is generally objectionable due to the violation of the principle of consistency and foreseeability of judicial decision-making. In the case of political caricature, the inconsistency is amplified by the fact that judicial decision-making influences the scope and form of political discussion, usually in a way that disadvantages those who try to strengthen their otherwise weaker voice in the public discourse by an expressive feature: caricature.
However, this limitation casts doubt on the basic premise of democracy, i. e. communicative rationality of citizens.