111. Noting that there were no private television or radio stations in
Austria, members also wished to know whether those forms of mass media were
completely monopolized by the State. Members also asked what policy
guidelines were followed to ensure objective reporting by the press and what
the criteria and selection mechanism were with respect to the granting of
subsidies to the press. In addition, they requested clarification of the
legal basis, interpretation and application of article 188 of the Criminal
Code, which provided for penalties in cases where a belief, custom or
institution was ridiculed or discredited, and asked which person was duly
authorized by law, pursuant to article 14 of the Basic Law, to compel another
person to take part in religious activities.
112. In his reply, the representative explained that under a new proposal
currently under study, conscientious objectors would no longer be subjected to
examination and their alternative service would be only two months longer than
military service. As for problems relating to Jehovah's Witnesses, a
practical solution had been found based on the legal provision that the
military authorities could dismiss people from military service who were unfit
for such service.
113. On request, the Austrian people were completely free to seek and impart
any information they wished, provided that they did not act contrary to the
Penal Code. How information was made available to the public requesting
information depended on the circumstances of the case, bearing in mind the
interests of the parties concerned. Article 111 of the Criminal Code was
essentially a mechanism to defend the reputation of private individuals and
there was no intention, at present, to amend it. The violation of public
order was not a criminal but an administrative offence and judges and
prosecutors were therefore not dealing with questions of public order in the
context of article 111.
114. The radio and television enterprise was not a state monopoly but was
under a separate broadcasting authority, with a legal entity, which licensed
newscasters to collect and broadcast information, A commission, comprised of
judges and other individuals, controlled the objectivity of radio and
television broadcasts, but its decisions could be appealed. The Government
was currently redrafting the anti-monopoly and anti-trust laws in general,
with a special section relating to the mass media. The guidelines for
granting subsidies to newspapers were not available, but it was clear that the
Government had no influence on the editorial policy of new papers receiving
such subsidies.
115. As regards article 188 of the Criminal Code, the representative shared
the view that the provisions relating to blasphemy were obsolete, but noted
that they had been designed to defend public order and tolerance among
different religious groups. Article 188 would come into play in the case of
public behaviour causing justifiable annoyance and serious irritation to
members of a particular religious group, and the article was not inconsistent
with article 19, paragraph 3, of the Covenant. In the Lingens case, the
European Court of Human Rights had ruled that a distinction would have to be
drawn between the substance of information and opinion, which might be
shocking and offensive, and the form in which such information or opinion was
expressed. Thus, for example. The Satanic Verses would be protected under the
special provision for freedom of the arts in Austrian legislation and
-25-