The primeval obstacle of absolute freedom is demarcation. Where ends the freedom of one and where begins the freedom of the other? And, if the will of one contradicts the will of another, what then? The answer to these questions has, traditionally, been society. Alone it has protected man from the tyranny of the strong’s natural, animalistic right; though, in doing so, it has often chained mankind. It has, too, proved often inefficient:

Katharina Blum is a citizen of 1970’s Germany, which places her in the European Theater of the Cold War – an ideological war "to assure the integrity and vitality of our free society, which is founded upon the dignity and worth of the individual."[1] Thus one should expect her to live in a venerable "City on the Hill" of democracy and freedom, as hers will be the most closely scrutinized. Yet it is within minutes of the film’s beginning that the police have raided Katharina’s home and subsequently detained her in a method reminiscent of Nazi times. They lack concrete evidence of wrongdoing . . . they lack even a crime with which to charge her. Truly, the focus of investigation is not she, but rather the person with whom she slept the night before. He is suspected of robbery. He is the one they seek, because he is a political radical. Yet she becomes their target when he escapes.

Naturally any society must have some mechanism for moderating civic behavior, and naturally that body must have some ability to restrict freedom. This is how society protects the weak from the strong, and is subsequently irrelevant. Katharina, though, was not protected, and that is relevant. Her rights were taken away by a police force masquerading under the guise of enlightened democracy in a fascist attempt to capture a political antagonist. The action was not arbitrary: It was specifically designed to revoke her autonomy in favor of the state’s. In a truly democratic system, the policing body would not be concerned with the quantity of people arrested; rather, they would preoccupy themselves with the accuracy of their investigations. Nor would they seek to nullify individual right in doing so; even criminals have basic, human rights. It is a truly totalitarian state that seeks internment without substantiation and to withdraw human rights. Such things are to be expected in Orwellian systems where fear is utilized as a method of social control, such as modern day China. There, 241 people are "still imprisoned or on medical parole serving long sentences for their activities in connection with the 1989 protests." [2] However, Germany is not China, and no such action should be possible. However, a fraction of the body politic had brought its will to bare on a single element of the sovereign, a retrogression to the ancient rule of the strong, and far from a glorification of "free will" and the democratic dream of absolute freedom. This is the type of rule propagated by the governments of countries such as China and Indonesia. This is not democracy, nor freedom.

In the end, though, the police intervention was of little importance. Alone, it would have done little more than disillusion Katharina to the hypocrisy of the state. Die Zeitung inevitably revoked Katharina’s honor – her social identity – and destroyed her life. Its role is considerably different from that of the police. To begin, it is an independent body – for all intents and purposes the same as Katharina herself – while the police are a biological extension of the state entity, created by a public outcry for a medium of law enforcement. The police seek to enforce public will, while Die Zeitung seeks simply to continue its existence (hence, to sell papers). Therefore any interaction occurring between Katharina and Die Zeitung is an interaction between supposedly equal members of the body politic, and, for that reason, any deceitful effort to defame Katharina should be perceived as an effort to undermine the body politic en masse. Consequently, it should be liable to policing actions as a blatant attempt to enforce the will of one upon another and to tear at the fabric of society.

Obviously this is not the case. The ultra-conservative Zeitung screams Katharina’s story to the point where normal life is no longer possible and there is no police intervention. Her life is destroyed by a single entity – an act proportional to murder. This is allowed, in its entirety, because it further undermines the radical cause that the conservative mass abhors. Too, it glorifies the actions of the police, which is necessary in the event that their conduct should be questioned. After all, Ludwig was the primary target, and he was not arrested.

Ultimately, Rousseau was right: individual will ultimately results in the death of society. Katharina’s honor died, not because it was criminal, but because it was weak.