So I'll try to keep this short, because if I think about it too much I'll probably have a nervous breakdown. As you may have heard, two interesting and potentially far-reaching court decisions were handed down on Tuesday regarding political speech in Hungary. In the first, the European Court of Human Rights struck down a law banning the communist-style red star, which Hungary enacted back in 1994. Meanwhile, that same day a local court in Budapest ruled that egg-throwing is a form of protected political speech, provided people cut it out if the cops tell them to. While this might seem like a massive victory for free speech, there's one small (i.e. huge) problem: according to index.hu, the Strasbourg decision does not apply to the swastika or the arrow cross, the display of which are still rigidly controlled by the original law against "symbols of tyranny." So just to quickly connect the dots here, it's now legal to pelt people you hate with eggs, but not to show them a picture that might hurt their feelings. Obviously the next important theory the country's constitutional eggheads need to work over is whether it's legal to paint a picture of a swastika or arrow cross on an egg and then throw it at someone...
Published every Wednesday, the Politics Hungary newsletter contains all the previous week's headlines from Politics.hu, as well as related stories from other All Hungary sites.
It looks to me like Hungarian judges are deeply interesting in exploring the relationship between the ontic and the oneiric.
One now has to distinquish between what actually happened and what we image the perpetrators of various acts think happened/should of happened.
The egg is merely a manifestation, the haeccity and quiddity, of a semantic construct. As such the owner of said semantic construct can hardly be held responsible for the form of expression that these ideas decide to take. These people are merely vessels for their thoughts.
It's a continual battle between parousia and apousia, as Heidegger might have put it.
I say their attempt to tackle these profound philosophical issues is brave.
Just glancing through the judgement of the ECHR, I am not certain Swastika's will stay banned. It depends on the weighing of the criteria in points 48 through 57. I looked at it for a minute and think you could try to build a case that the Swastika falls within the freedom of expression guaranteed in article 10. I especially think of the case when Hindus use the symbol as a religious item. I guess political use will quickly amount to a kind of hate speech, which can be prohibited. (That can also be said of the red star though. Apparently nazis can hate, but socialists can not.)
Nonetheless, Germany has a problem if their law categorically bans the swastika.
2 things come to mind about this egg-story:
a) I read somewhere that the police before the Parade, whe the discussions were high that the BP Police had banned it, stated that it was not "illegal" to throw eggs. This was the Police opinion before the Parade, making anyone ask how then they could actually apprehend anyone for throwing eggs?
2) As I wrote after Parade 2007, the local Police commander (or something similar) actually told the anti-demonstrators that "throwing of eggs are OK, and a rush into the Parade is also OK. We hate the gays as much as you do".
On the other hand one can easily judge this years Policing and crowd control as more professional than last year. Last year it was of course not over 2.000 officers involved, just a few hundred.