Waffen

Gun law

Gun Law refers to a Law that pertains to firearms and weapons. Gun laws are a highly dependent on time an location and have developed along with developlments in weapons and societies. Gun law can become a politcal and controversial issue among many societies. There are many differing views on how gun laws should be setup in a society.

One Gun Law is called "brandishing a firearm". It doesn't matter if the gun is a toy or a real gun that shoots bullets. If you point the gun at someone and reasonably induce fear into them, that is against the law and is a class 1 misdeameanor. You could be fined up to $250 dollars and could serve up to 12 months in jail. In short, do not point guns at people, even if it is a joke. The law is no joke.

Guns and crime

In some countries such as the United States, the amount of regulation that governments should impose on firearms is controversial. One major point in the argument is the positive or negative correlation that many argue exist between crime, especially violent crime, and gun ownership. Both sides actively debate the relevance of gun laws and self-defense in modern society.

Some scholars, notably John Lott, claim to have discovered a positive correlation between gun control legislation and crimes in which criminals confront citizens. Robert Ehrlich, in his book Nine Crazy Ideas in Science (ISBN 0691094950), examines this issue in Chapter 2, "More Guns Means Less Crime". He revisits John Lott's original data and concludes that the data was somewhat manipulated to "prove" a point. For example, many graphs are fits to the data and do not show the data itself. The raw data does not support Lott's thesis the way the fitted graph did. Ehrlich's conclusion is that more guns does not mean less crime, though it does not necessarily mean more crime either.

A European example would be to compare the violent crime levels between the United Kingdom which has very strict rules against gun ownership and self-defense and Switzerland which has widespread private gun ownership and which maintains the right to self-defense. According to Interpol data, in 2002, homicides were significantly more prevalent (2.91 vs 2.01 per 100,000 inhabitants) in Switzerland than in England and Wales

This would seem to indicate a positive correlation between gun ownership and crime. Such a comparison between only two countries, however, is quite meaningless: many other factors may come into play except for firearm legislation. As an element of comparison, in 2001 the homicide rate for the United States of America was 5.91 per 100,000

Another example is Japan,which has strict rules about gun ownership and a low crime rate.

The 1993 US Brady Bill is an example of a gun control law that has been generally correlated with a decrease, not an increase, in overall crime levels. Critics argue that the reduction was more driven by improving economic and other factors than by the gun control regulations. Because the Brady Bill was a national law, the measurement of its results must be treated as a single sample. That is, it has no more nor less weight than the findings after a change in the laws of a single state or municipality.

 Gun politics in the US
US Firearms Legal Topics:

Assault weapons ban
Brady Handgun Act
BATFE (law enforcement)
Gun Control Act of 1968
Gun politics in the US
National Firearms Act
2nd Amendment
Straw purchase
Sullivan Act (New York)
Violent Crime Control Act
Contents [showhide]
1 Gun politics in the United States
1.1 Constitutional issues
1.2 Other issues
1.2.1 Prominent organizations and individuals

3 Gun control laws
4 Debate
4.1 Self-defense
4.2 Accidents
4.3 Security against tyranny and invasion
4.4 The Second Amendment
4.5 Positions in the debate
6 External links

Gun politics in the United States

Constitutional issues
The private ownership of guns is an especially contentious political topic in the United States, where the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
The meaning of this text remains fiercely debated, with some saying that the amendment only refers to official bodies under government control (such as the National Guard) and others saying that the amendment always guaranteed the right of independent individuals to possess and carry firearms. The first side argues that only "well regulated militia" have the right to keep and bear Arms. Others say the phrase "the people" uncontroversially applies to individuals rather than an organized collective. They point out that in the following statement books could not be restricted to University graduates only: "A well graduated Academia being necessary to the prosperity of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Books shall not be infringed."

Earlier drafts of the United States Bill of Rights had much lengthier text that was trimmed as part of an overall effort by the Founding Fathers to shorten a document that was then perceived to be too wordy. Some constitutional scholars ascribe significance to these drafts, which tend to support a broader application of the Second Amendment. The constitutions of over 40 states provide more clearly written protection for the individual right to firearms ownership.

Gun rights advocates point to the writings of the Founders to indicate that the intent of the Second Amendment was to assure that the ordinary individual citizens of America would have the freedom of choice to own whatever sorts of weapons they wished. Here is a sample of those statements....:

"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws." --John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)
"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution, June, 1776
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." --Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book, 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764
"[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually.". . . I ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." --George Mason, Virginia's U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788

"That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free state." -- Within Mason's declaration of "the essential and unalienable Rights of the People," --George Mason, later adopted by the Virginia ratification convention, 1788
"The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms." --Samuel Adams, Massachusetts' U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788
"[A] string of amendments were presented to the lower House; these altogether respected personal liberty." --William Grayson, Letter to Patrick Henry, June 12, 1789, referring to the introduction of what became the Bill of Rights
"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms... The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle." --Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer, 1788
"The Constitution preserves "the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." --James Madison, The Federalist, No. 46
"The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them." --Tench Coxe, An American Citizen, Oct. 21, 1787
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." --Tench Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788
"As the military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article (of amendment) in their right to keep and bear their private arms." --Tench Coxe, Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power." --Noah Webster, An Examination of The Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787
"[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens." --Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist, No. 29
"[A]rms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." --Thomas Paine, Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775
"The rights of conscience, of bearing arms, of changing the government, are declared to be inherent in the people." --Fisher Ames, Letter to F.R. Minoe, June 12, 1789
"What, sir, is the use of militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. . . Whenever Government means to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise a standing army upon its ruins." --Elbridge Gerry, Debate, U.S. House of Representatives, August 17, 1789
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel." --Patrick Henry, Virginia's U.S. Constitution ratification convention

The US Supreme Court has never directly ruled on the actual meaning of the Second Amendment despite having had a variety of opportunities to do so. Gun rights advocates point out that the court has made statements that refer to this right as an individual right. These statements are found in cases unrelated to the Second Amendment. Gun control advocates point out that the US Supreme Court has never taken a Second Amendment case and used it to strike down any gun control law. The de facto position of the Executive Branch from 1934 until 2002 was that the Second Amendment protects a collective right. In 2002, Attorney General John Ashcroft and Solicitor General Theodore Olson announced their interpretation that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms.

For some of the opinions from the US Supreme Court which mention the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right of citizens, see cases: Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857, U.S. v. Cruikshank, Casey v. Planned Parenthood (1992), Johnson v. Eisentrager, Poe v. Ullman, Konigsberg v. State Bar, Duncan v. Louisiana, Laird v. Tatum, Spencer v. Kemna (1998), Albright v. Oliver and U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez.

Other issues
Certain local jurisdictions, such as New York, had begun trying to restrict firearms ownership from minorities with registration schemes as early as 1911 and the former slave states had tried to prohibit black Americans from owning any sort of firearms starting shortly after the 13th Amendment was enacted officially freeing all slaves in 1865.

Some gun control advocates claim that only those types of weapons available to the public at the time the Second Amendment was ratified are protected by the Second Amendment; thus, they claim, Americans should be allowed only flint-lock muskets. Critics of that stance, however, contend that by that logic, freedom of speech should be restricted to the manual printing press, and word-of-mouth.

While the technology of firearm known to the Founding Fathers was primitive by comparison to today's weapons, individuals at that time were free to own a greater amount of destructive force than today. At the time of the nation's founding, individuals were free to own any weapon known, including cannons, field pieces and even fully-armed warships of the day. In fact, up until the National Firearms Act of 1934, ordinary Americans could lawfully own any weapons available anywhere, including anything the US military used, such as tanks, artillery, bombs and even high-explosives. No licenses and no registration were required.

Most people on both sides agree that so-called "Weapons of Mass Destruction" (i.e., biological, chemical and nuclear weapons) cannot have any legitimate purpose in the hands of individuals and that even in non-hostile hands these weapons pose a serious threat due to the risk of even simple accidents during storage or transport. As such, most agree that even the broad protections of the Second Amendment for the right to keep and bear arms do not apply to "WMD's".

However, a few on the gun-rights side (notably Vin Suprynowicz) point out that all American government powers originate with the people. Therefore, they argue, if the American government has the power to own WMDs, the people must have the same power or else they wouldn't have been able to give it to the government.

There are many positions held on this debate, including the belief that gun ownership is currently overregulated, the desire to further regulate guns without banning them, and the wish to ban ownership outright. Gun rights and gun control advocates disagree upon many issues. Key disagreements include:

Did the Founding Fathers intend for the Second Amendment to apply to individuals or only to government bodies such as States?
What does the word "militia" refer to—state forces such as the National Guard, or the entire able-bodied citizenry?
Should the Second Amendment enjoy Fourteenth Amendment incorporation?
Does existing gun control legislation infringe upon the Second Amendment?
How many crimes are prevented and lives are saved due to the availability of firearms?
How many crimes are caused and lives are lost due to the availability of firearms?
Should the government have the right to restrict or regulate gun ownership?
People on both sides claim that the gun rights lobby is among the most effective and organized single-issue political groups in the United States. However, in-spite of that common perception and the best efforts of the gun rights lobby, the gun control/gun ban lobby has still managed to enact many gun control laws.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) is the largest and best-known gun rights and gun sports advocacy group. Originally formed in 1871, after the American Civil War, to promote marksmanship skills among the general population, the NRA was mainly a shooting-sports association made up of small, local clubs. It became a powerful lobbying force after the passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968, which made gun control a national issue. Virtually all pro-gun-control groups see the NRA's positions as extremist, especially since Wayne La Pierre became the de facto policy maker at the NRA, bringing with him a more hard-line stance towards gun rights than the NRA held in the past.

In contrast, the other national gun rights groups generally take a much harder line than the NRA. These groups criticize the NRA's history of support for various gun control legislation such as: the Gun Control Act of 1968, the ban on armor-piercing projectiles and the point-of-purchase background checks (NICS), to name a few. The Second Amendment Sisters, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, The Pink Pistols and Gun Owners of America are among the groups in this category.

While gun control is not strictly a partisan issue, there is more support for gun control in the Democratic Party than the Republican Party. Traditionally, regional differences are greater than partisan ones on this issue. Southern and Western states are predominantly pro-gun while coastal states like California, Massachusetts, and New York favor gun control. Other areas, including the Midwest, are mixed.
 

Some questions of regulatory policy include:

Types of firearm –Should some types of firearms be regulated differently than others?
Criteria of eligibility – Are there criteria that disqualify a person from owning firearms? (Possible criteria include age, mental competence, firearm training, and felony conviction)
Background checks – Should there be background checks made to verify eligibility to own a firearm? Who should make them, and should there be a waiting period before a firearm can be sold?
Registration – Should all firearms and firearm owners be registered? If so, how may the registration information be used, and who should have access to it?
Concealed weapons – Should carry of a concealed weapon be regulated? If so, should concealed carry be regulated separately from ownership, and if so, how?
Enforcement –Once firearms policy is decided, will it be official policy to enforce these laws and how can they be enforced? (refer to Janet Reno's published statements regarding the near zero enforcement of firearms laws against known criminals as not being a priority)
 
Prominent organizations and individuals
The field of political research regarding firearms suffers from the same contention as the issue of firearms itself. Almost every prominent researcher has seen their works attacked by those uncomfortable with their conclusions, and some have had their work investigated as academic fraud. Nonetheless, some influential individuals include:

Gary Kleck

Arthur Kellermann

John Lott

David Mustard

Michael Bellesiles

Clayton Cramer

Some prominent advocacy organizations in this field:

National Rifle Association (http://www.nra.org/)

Second Amendment Sisters (http://www.sas-aim.org/)

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (http://www.jpfo.org/)

Gun Owners of America (http://www.gunowners.org/)

Pink Pistols - A gay gun rights advocacy group (http://www.pinkpistols.org/)

rkba.org (http://www.rkba.org/)

Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (http://www.csgv.org)

The Brady Campaign (formerly Handgun Control, Inc.) (http://www.handguncontrol.org/)

Join Together - Gun Violence Section (http://www.jointogether.org/gv/)

The High Road - Premier Firearms Website on the Internet (http://www.thehighroad.org/)

rebellog hat eine klare Position. Waffen dienen der Selbstverteidigung. Sie sind nur zu diesem Zweck (außer zu Sport- und Jagdzwecken) einzusetzen. jede Form von Gewaltausübung oder Angriff mit Waffen, ob Stech- oder Schußwaffen wird von rebbelog strickt abgelehnt.

Das Recht auf Selbstverteidigung ist ein fundamentales, unveräußerbares Menschenrecht Das Übertragen von Verteidigungsaufgaben and Exekutivorgane kann nur eine Ergänzung zur eigenen Verteidigungsbereitschaft darstellen. Die Polizei, ist, situationsbedingt, oft zu spät am Einsatzort. Deshalb hat ein mündiger Bürger das Recht sich selbst zu schützen. Dieses Recht wird ihm nach geltender Rechtsprechung vorenthalten. Die Politik hat kein Vertrauen in ihre angeblich mündigen Bürger. Bedauerlichweise ist das Recht auf Tragen einer Waffe in Deutschland nicht im Grundgesetz verankert, wie es das zum Beispiel in der amerikanischen Verfassung ist. Der Legalwaffenbesitz ist einigen Prominenten vorbehalten, gilt also für den Normalbürger nicht. Nach zwar schrecklichen, aber untypischen, durch Waffengesetzgebung eh nicht zu regelnden Vorkommnissen (Erfurt) fühlen sich erneut Politiker berufen Bürger in unerträglicherweise zu gängeln und sie wie unmündige Kinder zu behandeln.

Nachweislich hat eine strenge Waffengesetzgebung wie in Großbritannien oder Australien die Kriminalitätsrate nicht senken können.

Die von den Medien und Lobbyisten verbreitete Waffenhysterie macht eine emotionsfrei sachliche Diskussion unmöglich. Einzelereignisse wie Littleton werden aufgebauscht um der Quote oder Kasse willen. Nachweislich hat Michael Moore Fakten und Unwahrheiten in unzulässigerweise gemischt - in unsauberer Stil der Dokumentation und typisch für den Umgang mit dem Thema Waffen.

Ich war selbst oft in den Staaten, zuletzt in Kentucky. Fast jeder trug dort eine Waffe, sogar in der Bank (nur der Kassierer nicht). Der letzte Vorfall mit tödlichem Ausgang lag 30 (!!!) Jahre zurück. Die Tötungsdelikte mit Schußwaffen sind überwiegend in den Auseinandersetzungen rivalisierender Streetgangs in den Großstädten zu finden. Ihre hohe Quote auf die Gesamtbevölkerung umzulegen ist unzulässig.

Durch staatlichen sanktionierten Waffengebrauch (Militär) verloren weltweit unvergleichlich mehr Menschen ihr Leben als durch Waffen in Privathand. Waffen in der Hand von Militärs sind Aggressionswaffen. Waffen in Privathand zunächst und wenn nicht mißbräuchlich genutzt Verteidigungswaffen. Warum sollte der Aufruf von Politikern aller Couleur sein Schicksal selbst in die Hand zu nehmen ausgerechnet hier, wenn es in Ausnahmefällen um das eigene Leben geht nicht gültig sein?

Zensur

 
Zensur (censura) ist ein Verfahren eines Staates oder einer Gemeinschaft, um Informationen oder andere durch Medien vermittelte Inhalte zu kontrollieren, zu unterdrücken oder im eigenen Sinn zu steuern.

Vor allem Nachrichten, künstlerische Äußerungen und Meinungsäußerungen sind Gegenstände der Zensur. Sie dient überwiegend dem Ziel, das Geistesleben in politischer, sittlicher und/oder religiöser Hinsicht zu kontrollieren. Berühmte Beispiele für Zensur sind die Listen

Verbotener Autoren im sog. Dritten Reich
die Bücherverbrennungen 1933 sowie der
ehemalige Index Librorum Prohibitorum (lat. Liste der verbotenen Bücher, 1967 abgeschafft) des Vatikans.

Inhaltsverzeichnis
1 Meinungs- und Rezeptionsfreiheit, der Begriff der Zensur im deutschen Recht
1.1 Beispiele für verfassungskonforme Einschränkungen der Meinungs- und Rezipientenfreiheit
1.1.1 Auswirkungen der Einschränkungen bei einzelnen Medien

1.1.1.1 Film
1.1.1.2 Foto
2 Beispiele für Zensur im weiteren Sinne
2.1 Synchronisation von Filmen
2.2 Kartografie
2.3 Kosmos
3 Kritik
4 Organisationen gegen Zensur
5 Zitate

Meinungs- und Rezeptionsfreiheit, der Begriff der Zensur im deutschen Recht
In Artikel 5, Abs. 1 des Grundgesetzes heißt es:

Jeder hat das Recht, seine Meinung in Wort, Schrift und Bild frei zu äußern und zu verbreiten und sich aus allgemein zugänglichen Quellen ungehindert zu unterrichten. Die Pressefreiheit und die Freiheit der Berichterstattung durch Rundfunk und Film werden gewährleistet. Eine Zensur findet nicht statt.
Artikel 5, Abs. 2 des Grundgesetzes führt weiter aus:

Diese Rechte finden ihre Schranken in den Vorschriften der allgemeinen Gesetze, den gesetzlichen Bestimmungen zum Schutze der Jugend und in dem Recht der persönlichen Ehre.

Nach Auffassung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts verbietet Art. 5 Abs. 1 S. 3 GG ausschließlich die Vorzensur. Als Vor- oder Präventivzensur werden dabei einschränkende Maßnahmen vor der Herstellung oder Verbreitung eines Geisteswerkes, insbesondere das Abhängigmachen von behördlicher Vorprüfung und Genehmigung seines Inhalts (Verbot mit Erlaubnisvorbehalt) bezeichnet (BVerfGE 33, 52 [1] (http://dejure.org/gesetze/rechtsprechung/Filmeinfuhrverbote.html)). Dagegen soll die Nachzensur in den Grenzen des Art. 5 Abs. 2 GG erlaubt sein.

Die durch diese Bestimmung grantierte Freiheit, Informationen sowohl zu verbreiten als auch zu empfangen, wird auch durch mehrere Menschenrechtserklärungen bestätigt. In der "Allgemeinen Erklärung der Menschenrechte" von 1948 heißt es in Artikel 19:

Jeder hat das Recht auf Meinungsfreiheit und freie Meinungsäußerung; dieses Recht schließt die Freiheit ein, Meinungen ungehindert anzuhängen sowie über Medien jeder Art und ohne Rücksicht auf Grenzen Informationen und Gedankengut zu suchen, zu empfangen und zu verbreiten.
Ähnlich die "Europäische Konvention zum Schutze der Menschenrechte und Grundfreiheiten" in Artikel 10:

(1) Jeder hat Anspruch auf freie Meinungsäußerung. Dieses Recht schließt die Freiheit der Meinung und die Freiheit zum Empfang und zur Mitteilung von Nachrichten oder Ideen ohne Eingriffe öffentlicher Behörden und ohne Rücksicht auf Landesgrenzen ein. Dieser Artikel schließt nicht aus, dass die Staaten Rundfunk-, Lichtspiel- oder Fernsehunternehmen einem Genehmigungsverfahren unterwerfen.
(2) Da die Ausübung dieser Freiheiten Pflichten und Verantwortung mit sich bringt, kann sie bestimmten, vom Gesetz vorgesehenen Formvorschriften, Bedingungen, Einschränkungen oder Strafandrohungen unterworfen werden, wie sie vom Gesetz vorgeschrieben und in einer demokratischen Gesellschaft im Interesse der nationalen Sicherheit, der territorialen Unversehrtheit oder der öffentlichen Sicherheit, der Aufrechterhaltung der Ordnung und der Verbrechensverhütung, des Schutzes der Gesundheit und der Moral, des Schutzes des guten Rufes oder der Rechte anderer, um die Verbreitung von vertraulichen Nachrichten zu verhindern oder das Ansehen und die Unparteilichkeit der Rechtsprechung zu gewährleisten, unentbehrlich sind.

Beispiele für verfassungskonforme Einschränkungen der Meinungs- und Rezipientenfreiheit
Nach dem Jugendschutzgesetz bedürfen bestimmte Medien, Filme beziehungsweise DVDs und Videokassetten und ebenso Computerspiele, nicht jedoch etwa Bücher, einer Altersfreigabe. Es handelt sich hierbei um ein staatliches Kennzeichnungsverfahren. Die dafür notwendige gutachterliche Prüfung der Medien erfolgt durch die FSK beziehungsweise USK. Nicht gekennzeichnete Medien dürfen nur Erwachsenen zugänglich gemacht werden. Es ist umstritten, ob ein solches Kennzeichnungsverfahren gegen das Zensurverbot des Grundgesetzes verstößt. Da aufgrund von Selbstverpflichtungen der deutschen Filmwirtschaft nicht von der FSK eingestufte Filme nicht öffentlich vorgeführt werden, stellt die Selbstkontrolle im Bereich des Films aus der Sicht des Rezipienten allerdings faktisch eine Art der Vorzensur dar.

Im Falle einer angenommenen erheblichen Gefährdung von Jugendlichen kann bei nicht gekennzeichneten Medien eine Indizierung durch die Bundesprüfstelle für jugendgefährdende Medien erfolgen, die insbesondere mit einem weit reichenden Verbot von Werbung und Versandhandel verbunden ist und somit das Medium oft ganz vom Markt verschwinden lässt, da es nicht mehr wirtschaftlich vertrieben werden kann. Das Indizierungsverfahren setzt nach Veröffentlichung des Mediums ein und ist deshalb kein Fall der Vorzensur.
Bei einem Verstoß gegen strafrechtliche Bestimmungen können Medien verboten und beschlagnahmt, ihre Verfasser bestraft werden. Einschlägig sind hier "harte" Pornographie (StGB, § 184), Gewaltdarstellungen (§ 131), Beschimpfung von Religionsgemeinschaften (§ 166), die Verwendung von Symbolen verfassungsfeindlicher Organisationen (§ 86a), Anleitung zu Straftaten (§ 130a) oder Volksverhetzung einschließlich der Leugnung des Holocaust (§ 130). Eine untergeordnete Rolle spielen Straftatbestände wie "Beleidigung" oder "Verleumdung" (StGB § 30, § 185, § 187), die auf den Schutz der Persönlichkeitsrechte des Opfers (Art. 2 GG) zielen. Nach (fast) einhelliger Meinung handelt es sich bei strafprozessualen Maßnahmen nicht um Zensurfälle.
Während in den meisten Staaten zum Zwecke des Jugendschutzes eine verbindliche Alterseinstufung von Medien vorgeschrieben ist (etwa in Großbritannien durch das BBFC) oder Medien freiwillig mit Altersempfehlungen versehen werden (etwa in den Niederlanden), stellt die Bundesprüfstelle zumindest im Bereich der liberalen Rechtsstaaten ein einmalige Institution dar.

Auswirkungen der Einschränkungen bei einzelnen Medien
Film
Für den Bereich des Films ist nicht zuletzt der § 131 StGB wichtig, der die Verbreitung (aber nicht den Besitz, nach einigen Urteilen auch nicht den bloßen Verkauf) "gewaltverherrlichender" Schriften unter Strafe stellt. Zahlreiche DVDs oder Video-Filme, die teilweise den Rang von Klassikern ihrer Genres besitzen (zum Beispiel "Blood Feast" von H.G. Lewis, "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" von Tobe Hooper, "Dawn ot the Dead" von George Romero) und außerhalb Deutschlands frei erhältlich sind, wurden und werden in Deutschland auf Grund des § 131 beschlagnahmt und sind somit auch für Erwachsene kaum zugänglich. Andere Filme werden zur Vermeidung einer Beschlagnahmung nur in einer stark geschnittenen, speziell für den deutschen Markt entschärften Version veröffentlicht.

Die faktisch kaum umgehbare Einstufung durch die FSK führt in manchen Fällen dazu, dass auch Erwachsene einen Film nicht (oder nicht ungeschnitten) im Kino anschauen können. Ein aktuelles Beispiel ist der Film The Punisher, den die FSK nur in einer geschnittenen Fassung mit "Keine Jugendfreigabe" eingestuft hat. Generell führen die Grundsätze der FSK recht strikte Kriterien auf, unter denen ein Film überhaupt freigegeben werden kann. So dürfen Filme, die das "sittliche oder religiöse Empfinden" verletzen keine Einstufung erhalten. Diese Bestimmung spielt heute keine allzu große Rolle mehr; 1983 wurde allerdings Herbert Achterbuschs religionskritischem Film Das Gespenst mit ebendieser Begründung eine Einstufung verweigert. Auch was die (nicht-pornographische) Darstelllung von Sexualität anbelangt, zeichnet sich bei der FSK (ebenso wie bei der BpjM) eine liberalere Urteilspraxis ab. Kritisch sind nach wie vor Gewaltdarstellungen.

Foto
Beim Foto gibt es eine Reihe von Besonderheiten, die mit dem Recht am eigenen Bild und dem Schutz der Privatsphäre verknüpft sind. Gängige Rechtsprechung war bisher, dass dieser Schutz bei Personen des Zeitgeschehens weitgehend aufgehoben ist. Durch ein Urteil des Europäischen Gerichtshofes für Menschenrechte zum Schutz der Privatsphäre wird die Bedeutung der Privatsphäre auch für Prominente hervorgehoben.

Beispiele für Zensur im weiteren Sinne
Synchronisation von Filmen
Eine subtilere Form der Zensur findet sich manchmal bei der Synchronisation von Filmen, indem missliebige Inhalte des Originaltextes falsch oder gar nicht übersetzt werden. Berühmte Beispiele sind die spanischen Version von Casablanca unter der Franco-Diktatur: (das Liebespaar mutierte zu Geschwistern), die deutsche Nachkriegs-Version von Federico Fellinis Rom, offene Stadt (der kommunistische Partisan wurde wortwörtlich zum Schweigen gebracht) ebenso wie in Alfred Hitchcocks Notorious eine Verschwörung von Alt-Nazis in einen Rauschgiftring mutierte. Neuere Beispiele sind Die Hard (1987 - Der deutsche Chef der Terroristen ist in der deutschen Version nicht deutsch) oder London kills me von 1991, in dem sich nervige deutsche Touristen während der Synchronisation in nervige französische Touristen verwandeln. Es gibt auch eine heute kaum vorstellbare, deutsche Version von Casablanca aus den 1950ern, in der jegliche Referenz auf das Dritte Reich getilgt ist.

Kartografie
In Diktaturen wird neben der vollständigen Zensur der Medien auch die kartografische Darstellung des Staatsgebietes auf frei verkäuflichen Landkarten durch Fälschung des Maßstabes und Weglassen wesentlicher Objekte zensiert, während richtige Karten unter Geheimhaltung stehen und nur dem Militär und anderen ähnlichen Stellen nur für Dienstzwecke zur Verfügung stehen. Auch in demokratischen Staaten besteht in geringerem Ausmaß eine kartografische Zensur: beispielsweise werden in Deutschland auch auf topografischen Karten militärische Anlagen nur sehr stark vereinfacht dargestellt.

Kosmos
In einem weiteren Sinne spricht Roger Penrose von einer Kosmischen Zensur. Diese Eigenschaft betrifft Singularitäten, die für die Zukunft vorhergesagt werden können. Kosmische Zensur: Die Natur verabscheut nackte Singularitäten. Aus diesem Grunde seien auch schwarze Löcher vor äußeren Beobachtern verborgen.

Kritik
Umstritten ist vor allem die Zweckmäßigkeit von Zensur. Viele Medien werden erst durch Zensurmaßnahmen bekannt, und verbotene Schriften können insbesondere für Jugendliche besonders reizvoll sein. Dieser Umstand führt vielfach dazu, dass Listen zensierter Medien ihrerseits zensiert werden, also nicht öffentlich zugänglich gemacht werden dürfen. Damit werden die Zensurentscheidungen der demokratischen öffentlichen Diskussion entzogen.

Zur Soziologie der Zensur hat bereits der Klassiker des Faches Vilfredo Pareto eine bedeutende Analyse vorgelegt.

Organisationen gegen Zensur
1900 wurde aus Anlaß der Lex Heinze der allgemeine deutsche Goethe-Bund zum Schutze der Freiheit von Kunst und Wissenschaft gegründet.

Zitate
Johann Nestroy: Die Zensur ist das lebendige Geständnis der Großen, daß sie nur verdummte Sklaven, aber keine freien Völker regieren können.
Karlheinz Deschner ("Nur Lebendiges schwimmt gegen den Strom"): Freie Presse: jeder darf lesen, was gedruckt wird.

Censorship in the United States

Censorship in the United States has always been more rare than in any other major country since the republic's founding in 1776, but has taken several forms over the centuries.

The US Bill of Rights explicitly forbids the government to censor advocacy of religious ideas or practices and guarantees the rights of citizens to speak and publish freely, as well as to "assemble" to demand "redress of grievances" (see First Amendment).

Yet perfectly free expression of ideas or information has never existed in the US. For example, the U.S. military has always censored news on war. And no one is permitted to "shout fire in a crowded theatre" just to have the fun of causing a panic. There are also laws about incitement to riot, which draw a fine distinction between (a) saying a situation is intolerably bad and (b) urging people to take immediate, illegal action to "right the wrong."

There have been rare examples the government exercising "prior restraint" of sensitive material, for instance the Pentagon Papers' publication in the New York Times and the Washington Post, but these exercises have generally been ruled unconstitutional.

Courts censor "obscene" materials. School libraries, in a way, have occasionally censored a book by refusing to shelve it -- although the public library in the same town might carry it.

Although the First Amendment to the fledgling nation's constitution was intended to guarantee the free expression of political and religious ideas, many writers have charged that political parties and corporate interests have found ways to suppress ideas which are so effective as to be tantamount to censorship itself.

Political parties and corporate interests hire public relations firms, who use spin (a form of propaganda) and media manipulation to direct people's attention away from issues they prefer not to be discussed, or towards others. The techniques are not, however, universally successful. Political scandals, in particular, such as the Monica Lewinsky incident, have a tendency to leak out, in particular if there is sordid or ribald interest.

Moreover, the book Manufacturing Consent argues that economic pressure on media corporations enforces a pro-government slant on news reporting. Similarly, the book Bias argues that a prevailing liberal viewpoint among TV journalists results in the suppression of conservative views. See the media bias page for further discussion of allegations of conservative vs. liberal biases in the American media.

Censorship efforts directed towards musicians have occurred several times in American history. This began at least as far back as jazz in the 1920s, when observers expressed fear that the music was corrupting the minds of young Americans. This has been a common accusation throughout the years, and has been applied to the blues, swing, hip hop, punk rock, rock and roll, heavy metal, psychedelic rock and rockabilly. Artists like 2 Live Crew, Marilyn Manson, Elvis Presley, The Doors and Eminem have been subjects of censorship efforts.

Richard Feynman's autobiography discusses the quasilegal censorship which he and his then-wife worked under while he was at the Manhattan Project.

 Censorship in cyberspace

Censorship in cyberspace is often treated as a separate issue from censorship of offline material, but the legal issues are similar.

The major difference is that national borders are more permeable online: residents of a country that bans certain information can often find it on web sites hosted elsewhere. Conversely, attempts by one government to prevent its citizens from seeing certain material can have the effect of restricting foreigners, because the government may take action against Internet sites anywhere in the world, if they host material it objects to. For example:

France has asked auction sites hosted in the United States to remove Nazi memorabilia.
The People's Republic of China has set up systems for Internet censorship that are collectively known as the Great Firewall of China.
Burma maintains the restrictive Myanmar Wide Web.
Cuba has made Internet usage illegal without a permit. For the most part only medical doctors can get permits, making the neighbourhood doctor the place to go to send e-mail to family abroad, but the Cuban government has been trying to restrict this.
Tunisia has blocked thousands of websites (such as pornography, mail, and translation services) and peer-to-peer and FTP transfer. [Technically, the filtering is made via a transparent proxy and the ports 23, 80, 1080, 3128 and 8080 are blocked.]
Syria has banned websites for political reasons and arrested people accessing them.
The majority of Internet access in the Middle East and a number of other countries is through government controlled proxy servers that block access to sites that are considered to be 'immoral'. This includes not only directly pornographic websites but also certain chat forums discussing any issues of sexuality, controversial blogging hosts, sites showing nudity of any description (including online businesses selling women's lingerie), as well as politically sensitive or controversial topics. Copies of pages are reviewed and eventually blocked when they do not meet set criteria.
The efforts of Scientology to stifle online discussion of its activities has been seen by many as a form of censorship.
The Project for the New American Century published plans that some said would control cyberspace and militarize near-Earth orbits in September 2000 [1] (http://newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf).
Censoring information on the internet, however, is very difficult (or impossible) to achieve due to the underlying distributed technology of the internet. Pseudonymity and data havens (such as Freenet) allow unconditional free speech, as the technology guarantees that material cannot be removed and the author of any information is impossible to link to a physical identity or organization