The Village Where the Neo-Nazis Rule

[Lief 🗽]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,737471,00.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[tnowacki]

Not very good news. But, if we are realistic: What can the government do?

[tpfkaw]

Not very good news. But, if we are realistic: What can the government do?

It can stop criminalizing speech and making the neo-Nazis look like they have the moral high ground.

[Tender Branson]

Ok, not that it isn't a problem, but this "village" has 10 houses and 30 inhabitants, of which "half" are Nazis.

I thought we are talking about a city of 10.000 people or so ...

[Antonio the Sixth]

Not very good news. But, if we are realistic: What can the government do?

It can stop criminalizing speech and making the neo-Nazis look like they have the moral high ground.

Physically attacking politicians and their property is "speech" in your book ? Interesting.

[Franzl]

Not very good news. But, if we are realistic: What can the government do?

It can stop criminalizing speech and making the neo-Nazis look like they have the moral high ground.

Physically attacking politicians and their property is "speech" in your book ? Interesting.

I imagine he's refering to laws in Germany banning denial of the Holocaust...publicly showing a swatstika...etc. And those laws are indeed quite stupid.

I'd prefer to let the public see and judge that type of behavior rather than criminalize it.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Not very good news. But, if we are realistic: What can the government do?

It can stop criminalizing speech and making the neo-Nazis look like they have the moral high ground.

Physically attacking politicians and their property is "speech" in your book ? Interesting.

I imagine he's refering to laws in Germany banning denial of the Holocaust...publicly showing a swatstika...etc. And those laws are indeed quite stupid.

I'd prefer to let the public see and judge that type of behavior rather than criminalize it.

A repeal of those laws means giving in to the NPD's demands and handing them a victory. Which is the main and maybe only reason I'd oppose a repeal.

[Insula Dei]

Also the german attitude towards neo-nazism is actually appreciated in some countries that were overran by Nazi Germany in WWII.

(In my personal experience at least)

[ag]

Also the german attitude towards neo-nazism is actually appreciated in some countries that were overran by Nazi Germany in WWII.

(In my personal experience at least)

There is a difference between the laws and the attitude. I would personally break any relationship with any person who´d consider, say, voting NPD - full, unconditional boycott until s/he publicly and unreservedly repents. But I am opposed to there being a legal restriction imposed by the state. Ridicule them, boycott them, do whatever. But don´t criminalize speech, however hateful.

[Franzl]

A repeal of those laws means giving in to the NPD's demands and handing them a victory. Which is the main and maybe only reason I'd oppose a repeal.

So you oppose expanding freedom of speech for merely political reasons? I hate the NPD as much as the next person, but in this case, they're right: their freedom to spread hate is unfairly being restricted.

Isn't criminalizing it giving them a chance to play the "we're being oppressed" card much more easily?I think the German public is able to handle it being out in the open.

[Middle-aged Europe]

So you oppose expanding freedom of speech for merely political reasons?

I guess that was more or less what I was trying to say. In any case, it probably would be an "expansion of freedom of speech" I could live without.

(Actually, there are far better arguments in favor of a repeal of those laws than "OMG, the Nazis' freedom of speech is unfairly restricted". For example, when this producer of anti-Nazi symbols had to stand trial in Stuttgart because his anti-Nazi symbols contained the swastika... now that was just stupid.)

Isn't criminalizing it giving them a chance to play the "we're being oppressed" card much more easily?

As long as they aren't in power, they'll always say that they're unfairly persecuted and opressed. Next thing they'd want is that the Verfassungsschutz isn't observing them anymore. After that it would be the fact that they're generally shunned by other parties when it comes to parliamentary procedures. Then they would bemoan that they're representatives are never invited to political talk shows. Then they would say that they're unfairly discriminated by denying them seats on the broadcasting councils of the public TV stations (or public foundations in general, for that matter). Lesson from WWII: You can't ever appease Nazis.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Freedom of speech, as every freedom, is not absolute. The government has to regulate it in order to prevent its abuses.

IMO, any speech must be accepted as long as it's not hateful toward a particular group (ethnical, religious, etc...). You can disagree with me but please don't call me a "freedom hater", because that's silly.

[Franzl]

You can disagree with me but please don't call me a "freedom hater", because that's silly.

I wouldn't go that far...but it's certainly authoritarian to draw a line between acceptable und unacceptable speech.

There's a pretty large potential for abuse there.

[Middle-aged Europe]

You can disagree with me but please don't call me a "freedom hater", because that's silly.

I wouldn't go that far...but it's certainly authoritarian to draw a line between acceptable und unacceptable speech.

Virtually every society draws a certain line on "free speech". The question is not if, but where this line is drawn. Even the United States with its very broad definition of free speech has criminal defamation laws in 17 of its states. So in some cases speech is deemed so unacceptable that it even could result in jail sentences.

There's a pretty large potential for abuse there.

Then again, the mere existence of a police force also constitutes a potential for abuse (well, strike "potential", police abuse does in fact happen). So it comes down to which level of abuse is acceptable considering the alternative.


It's also interesting that the topic of this thread has shifted from violent acts perpetrated by the NPD to the alleged violation of NPD members' civil liberties. That makes the violent crimes of the NPD almost look justified now. (I highly doubt that granting full "free speech" to the NPD would make them any less violent though. If anything, I would fear for the opposite.)

[Antonio the Sixth]

You can disagree with me but please don't call me a "freedom hater", because that's silly.

I wouldn't go that far...but it's certainly authoritarian to draw a line between acceptable und unacceptable speech.

There's a pretty large potential for abuse there.

Of course. There is always potential for abuse in any regulation. And in any lack of regulation there is potential for anarchy. Of course it's easy to call authoritarian any statement that goes again the commonplace idea that unlimited freedom is a good thing.

[Franzl]

I suppose my question is: Why do we ban speech you consider hateful? Do you honestly think it prevents violence?

I always believe you need a pretty strong argument to limit freedom...not merely that certain groups feel that their feelings are hurt. I don't believe in a right to not be offended.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

But what is freedom? Abstract concepts aren't objective realities.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Why do you consider "hateful speech" as subjective ? If someone says "death to Jews !" is there any single way to consider this is not hateful ? For me, this is an argument strong enough to ban this kind of speech.

Hateful speech is the denial of someone's humanity, it is a discrimination because it violates the principle of equality between human beings. The State is in charge of guaranteeing this principle.

It could also encourage the passage from words to acts. In a society where it is tolerated to say "death to Jews !", I wouldn't be surprised if many Jews were killed.

[Middle-aged Europe]

I suppose my question is: Why do we ban speech you consider hateful? Do you honestly think it prevents violence?

I already told you. The existence of such laws doesn't really make much difference one way or the other. The act of repeal itself could strengthen the NPD's position though. I guess that means that I see it from a strategic point of view more than anything else.

That's also because I couldn't care less whether a Nazi's freedom of speech is restricted or not, provided that nobody else's is restricted (the latter part of that sentence indicates the only real reason for a repeal IMO... also see my previous example of the guy who had stand trial because of anti-Nazi symbols containing swastikas).

Of course you could make a case that passing such in laws in the first place was a mistake. Because back then you had a choice, but now there's no turning back.

I always believe you need a pretty strong argument to limit freedom...not merely that certain groups feel that their feelings are hurt. I don't believe in a right to not be offended.

So, what's your stance on defamation/libel laws then?

[Franzl]

You're right about the libel laws. I suppose it's a limit on speech as well...but is it really the same thing? You have to say something about someone that can be proven as false. Whereas "I hate Turks", as stupid as such a statement is....is merely an opinion to which one is entitled. Keeping someone from expressing their feelings doesn't make them go away.

I'm not accusing you of this in this case...but I often get the feeling that people that want to ban stuff, whether it be a political opinion or...say...alcohol during the prohibition era...think banning something is a victory against whatever it is that is banned.

It seems to me, as far as tolerance of umpopular snd hateful views are concerned...that we're not really doing anyone a favor by pretending we can "ban" it. If something is out in the open...it seems that it's safer and easier to observe (and ridicule, of course).

[Franzl]

Hateful speech is the denial of someone's humanity, it is a discrimination because it violates the principle of equality between human beings. The State is in charge of guaranteeing this principle.

I would answer that speech, whatever type of speech, is unable to "violate" that principle. Allowing speech doesn't lead to inequality before the law. The state is responsible for making sure that people are not put at a disadvantage becausr of race, gender, ethnic origin, etc....which includes anti-discrimination laws to make sure store owners can't deny service due to such reasons, for example.

Voicing an opinion, though, doesn't put anyone at a disadvantage though.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Well, I think the opposite. Verbal discrimination is a form of discrimination which can do as much damage as discrimination in employment or in public service access.

[minionofmidas]

"I hate Turks", as stupid as such a statement is....is merely an opinion to which one is entitled.

Quite, quite.
Meanwhile, much of the content of sites such as PI... or that site Gmantis recently linked to... or  of the speeches of Geert Wilders or the leaders of the Danish People's Party... would be libelous in Britain if directed against an individual rather than a group.

[GMantis]

"I hate Turks", as stupid as such a statement is....is merely an opinion to which one is entitled.

Quite, quite.
Meanwhile, much of the content of sites such as PI... or that site Gmantis recently linked to... or  of the speeches of Geert Wilders or the leaders of the Danish People's Party... would be libelous in Britain if directed against an individual rather than a group.

The libel laws in the UK are far too friendly to libel suits, so this is not really a good example.

[SPQR]

Also the german attitude towards neo-nazism is actually appreciated in some countries that were overran by Nazi Germany in WWII.

(In my personal experience at least)

Agreed.