4 ms·

Could be that it’s only “fine” in the short term. Just 80 years ago Germany was very far from “fine”.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
raxxorrax 8y ago
There were a lot of hate-speech laws when Hitler came to power. He even used the fact he was prevented from speaking publicly as propaganda. And yes, a lot of legislation of Weimar to censor spoken and written word has been extended by the Nazis after they came to power. People arguing for more moderation and more censorship generally lack perspective when they refer to fascism in the same breath. Free speech is a most effective disinfectant against fascism.
- foolrush 8y ago
  > There were a lot of hate-speech laws when Hitler came to power. False. https://www.unodc.org/cld/en/legislation/deu/german_criminal_code/special_part_-_chapter_seven/section_130/section_130.html https://www.unodc.org/cld/en/legislation/deu/german_criminal... https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/psilr13&div=15&id=&page= https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/...
  - raxxorrax 8y ago
    False. http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/his/CoreArt/prop/resn/ns_reden.jpg http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/his/CoreArt/prop/resn/ns_re... And yes, he was banned from speaking due to hate speech laws. I really know that. I live in Germany and have been briefed extensively. Our last emperor was the first to introduce legislation against hate-speech. But that was in the 19th century. Of course you do not find references to laws from the Weimar Republic and before in modern legislation.
    - foolrush 8y ago
      Cite the laws, cite the history of the dates implemented. Civil remedies did not exist. I have provided you with actual legally traceable citations to law and their implementations. You cited a propaganda poster. You are conflating a regime of arbitrary censorship with specific and nuanced legislation that was implemented as a direct result of Nazism. To argue that the basis of Germany's contemporary hate speech laws, including the most recent legislation regarding social media, is not a direct result of Germany's experience with Nazism is delusional. http://www.ecaj.org.au/2014/critics-of-section-18c-get-history-wrong/ http://www.ecaj.org.au/2014/critics-of-section-18c-get-histo... > there was no equivalent of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act in the Weimar Germany. The only laws against hate speech were criminal offences, not civil remedies. Weimar Germany had nothing equivalent to the framework which currently exists under the Racial Discrimination Act within which complaints of racial vilification have, in the vast majority of cases, been successfully conciliated through the Australian Human Rights Commission or resolved by direct negotiations between the parties. > In Weimar Germany, the absence of civil remedies was made worse by the fact that the relevant criminal offences were honeycombed with immunities for members of the Reichstag, the German Parliament. Nazi members of Parliament became the nominal publishers of single or multiple antisemitic publications. This facade meant that no one could be prosecuted for the hate crimes perpetrated by the publications. The Reichstag could waive immunity for its members, but did so rarely.
      - raxxorrax 8y ago
        https://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Strafgesetzbuch_f%C3%BCr_das_Deutsche_Reich_(1871)#%C2%A7._130 https://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Strafgesetzbuch_f%C3%BCr_das_.... § 130 StGB lautete in der Urfassung des Strafgesetzbuchs von 1871: „Wer in einer den öffentlichen Frieden gefährdenden Weise verschiedene Klassen der Bevölkerung zu Gewalttätigkeiten gegen einander öffentlich anreizt, wird mit Geldstrafe bis zu zweihundert Thalern oder mit Gefängniß bis zu zwei Jahren bestraft.“ The article you linked even explained that Nazis were prosecuted. That some of them had parliamentary immunity is another topic. Distinction of criminal and civil law is also secondary. 1960 a second paragraph was added the said that human dignity is indisputable. It was a reaction to anti-semitic attacks. But it is pretty factual that Germany had hate-speech laws before the Nazis came to power. > including the most recent legislation regarding social media most legal experts think this law is not constitutional and it was responsible for banning satire on the first day of its inception. Future rulings will decide its fate. Not giving you a quote on that, let's just wait.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

There were a lot of hate-speech laws when Hitler came to power. He even used the fact he was prevented from speaking publicly as propaganda. And yes, a lot of legislation of Weimar to censor spoken and written word has been extended by the Nazis after they came to power. People arguing for more moderation and more censorship generally lack perspective when they refer to fascism in the same breath. Free speech is a most effective disinfectant against fascism.

foolrush 8y ago
> There were a lot of hate-speech laws when Hitler came to power. False. https://www.unodc.org/cld/en/legislation/deu/german_criminal_code/special_part_-_chapter_seven/section_130/section_130.html https://www.unodc.org/cld/en/legislation/deu/german_criminal... https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/psilr13&div=15&id=&page= https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/...
- raxxorrax 8y ago
  False. http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/his/CoreArt/prop/resn/ns_reden.jpg http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/his/CoreArt/prop/resn/ns_re... And yes, he was banned from speaking due to hate speech laws. I really know that. I live in Germany and have been briefed extensively. Our last emperor was the first to introduce legislation against hate-speech. But that was in the 19th century. Of course you do not find references to laws from the Weimar Republic and before in modern legislation.
  - foolrush 8y ago
    Cite the laws, cite the history of the dates implemented. Civil remedies did not exist. I have provided you with actual legally traceable citations to law and their implementations. You cited a propaganda poster. You are conflating a regime of arbitrary censorship with specific and nuanced legislation that was implemented as a direct result of Nazism. To argue that the basis of Germany's contemporary hate speech laws, including the most recent legislation regarding social media, is not a direct result of Germany's experience with Nazism is delusional. http://www.ecaj.org.au/2014/critics-of-section-18c-get-history-wrong/ http://www.ecaj.org.au/2014/critics-of-section-18c-get-histo... > there was no equivalent of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act in the Weimar Germany. The only laws against hate speech were criminal offences, not civil remedies. Weimar Germany had nothing equivalent to the framework which currently exists under the Racial Discrimination Act within which complaints of racial vilification have, in the vast majority of cases, been successfully conciliated through the Australian Human Rights Commission or resolved by direct negotiations between the parties. > In Weimar Germany, the absence of civil remedies was made worse by the fact that the relevant criminal offences were honeycombed with immunities for members of the Reichstag, the German Parliament. Nazi members of Parliament became the nominal publishers of single or multiple antisemitic publications. This facade meant that no one could be prosecuted for the hate crimes perpetrated by the publications. The Reichstag could waive immunity for its members, but did so rarely.
    - raxxorrax 8y ago
      https://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Strafgesetzbuch_f%C3%BCr_das_Deutsche_Reich_(1871)#%C2%A7._130 https://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Strafgesetzbuch_f%C3%BCr_das_.... § 130 StGB lautete in der Urfassung des Strafgesetzbuchs von 1871: „Wer in einer den öffentlichen Frieden gefährdenden Weise verschiedene Klassen der Bevölkerung zu Gewalttätigkeiten gegen einander öffentlich anreizt, wird mit Geldstrafe bis zu zweihundert Thalern oder mit Gefängniß bis zu zwei Jahren bestraft.“ The article you linked even explained that Nazis were prosecuted. That some of them had parliamentary immunity is another topic. Distinction of criminal and civil law is also secondary. 1960 a second paragraph was added the said that human dignity is indisputable. It was a reaction to anti-semitic attacks. But it is pretty factual that Germany had hate-speech laws before the Nazis came to power. > including the most recent legislation regarding social media most legal experts think this law is not constitutional and it was responsible for banning satire on the first day of its inception. Future rulings will decide its fate. Not giving you a quote on that, let's just wait.