SSI english 
 
Letter NCFE 5.14.96  
 
 SSI home 
 
Video-Burning! Prison for satirical Video!
Letter NCFE 10.31.96 
 
 
31st Mai 1989
Open letter to the National Congress 
Werner Düggelin / Friedrich Dürrenmatt / Max Frisch / Markus Imhoof / Thomas Koerfer / Bernhard Luginbühl / Fredi M. Murer / Adolf Muschg / Otto F. Walther 
 
Concearning: Draft for the change of the Swiss criminal code 26. 6.85 
 
Art. 135 Portrayal of violence 
Who produces / imports / stores / puts into circulation / exhibits / offers / shows / let someone have / makes availablesound- or filmrecordings, portrayals, other objects or presentations of cruel acts of violence against men and animals with intense impact and hurting bad the elemtary human dignity while not having a cultural or scientific value,will be punished with prison or fee.
Against cultural censorship 

Dear ladies and gentlemen of the National Congress  

Culture is the mirror of men, society and also the state. 

Worldwide all society systems produce a distressing amount of cruel violence against men and animals. Again and again artists make it their business to stir people by portraying these acts of violence with intense impact in writings, performances, pictures and sound - work of art as reflections of a cruel and brutal reality. 

The history of art, theater, film, literature an music is full of examples of important works reflecting violence, that were very controversial and partly forbidden in their time. 

Neither has the state the right nor the task to judge artistical performances whether they are worth of protection or not. The cultural value worth of protection lies within the work of art itself. 

It is absurd if a liberal state wants to use judges as censors of art. They will have to judge following questions: 

1. Has the portrayal an intense impact? 

    A good work of art stands out through its intense impact? Do you want to privilege bad work of art?
2. Has the portrayal a cultural value? 
    Do you think all the deciding persons in the Ministry of Justice have an adequate cultural historical education to judge the cultural value of unusual, f.e. avantgardictic forms of expression? 
    Do you think this National law you want to create in the Swiss Penalty Code would be used only somewhat standardized in the different regions?
3. Has it a cultural value worth of protection? 
    Which cultural works of art are not worth of protection? Will works of art from now on be divided into "worth of" and "not worth of protection"? Is worth of protection what is concurring? 
    Would works of art that call normality into question be not worth of protection? 
    Does the average cultural taste in combination with common sense rule?
It can not be the task of a liberal state to introduce a general cultural censorship law, if the problem really is the reglementation of commercial video distribution - keywords: protection of children from brutalo-videos. 

The proposed art. 135 Swiss Penalty Code is clearly a cultural censorship law with all the inherent dangers and absurdities. 

The proposed art. 135 Swiss Penalty Code is cultural dirigism of the state and is out of place in a liberal state. 

We insist to refuse the law in this form 

kindest regards 

Werner Düggelin / Friedrich Dürrenmatt / Max Frisch / Markus Imhoof / Thomas Koerfer / Bernhard Luginbühl / Fredi M. Murer / Adolf Muschg / Otto F. Walther 

 
 
SSI english 
 
Letter NCFE 5.14.96  
 
 SSI home 
 
Video-Burning! Prison for satirical Video!
Letter NCFE 10.31.96 
  1