5 ms·

Actually Germany had strict hate speech laws and worked hard to prevent the Nazis from rising to power. From this article: https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-

Actually Germany had strict hate speech laws and worked hard to prevent the Nazis from rising to power. From this article: https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/copenhagen-speech-violence https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/copenhagen-speech-v... Weimar Germany did have hate-speech laws, and they were applied quite frequently. The assertion that Nazi propaganda played a significant role in mobilizing anti-Jewish sentiment is, of course, irrefutable. But to claim that the Holocaust could have been prevented if only anti-Semitic speech and Nazi propaganda had been banned has little basis in reality. Leading Nazis such as Joseph Goebbels, Theodor Fritsch, and Julius Streicher were all prosecuted for anti-Semitic speech. Streicher served two prison sentences. Rather than deterring the Nazis and countering anti-Semitism, the many court cases served as effective public-relations machinery, affording Streicher the kind of attention he would never have found in a climate of a free and open debate. In the years from 1923 to 1933, Der Stürmer [Streicher's newspaper] was either confiscated or editors taken to court on no fewer than thirty-six occasions. The more charges Streicher faced, the greater became the admiration of his supporters. The courts became an important platform for Streicher's campaign against the Jews. In the words of a present-day civil-rights campaigner, pre-Hitler Germany had laws very much like the anti-hate laws of today, and they were enforced with some vigor. As history so painfully testifies, this type of legislation proved ineffectual on the one occasion when there was a real argument for it. So it is not quite as you have claimed.

watwut 7y ago
German laws required direct incitement for violence to be actionable offence. During 1930s and before, these people were not prosecuted for antisemitism, but for for literal incitements to violence. Racism (or accusations against race as they called it) were protected by law - unlike accusations against religion which was protected. During that time, Nazi were engaged in quite a lot of political violence. Literal beating people violence. Even laws against violence were not actually really enforced for them. The argument that Nazi somehow had it hard to to pass through censorship is ridiculous. You are literally talking about time when SA were roaming streets beating people and Der Stürmer making up reasons for it. Goebbels went to jail for insulting police chief. Not for anti-semitism. I don't know why you lie, but you do.
- iamnothere 7y ago
  > I don't know why you lie, but you do. I hate to invoke HN guidelines, but this accusation violates "Assume good faith". Here's another source, this time from the National Review: Remarkably, pre-Hitler Germany had laws very much like the Canadian anti-hate law. Moreover, those laws were enforced with some vigour. During the 15 years before Hitler came to power, there were more than 200 prosecutions based on anti-Semitic speech. And, in the opinion of the leading Jewish organization of that era, no more than 10 per cent of the cases were mishandled by the authorities. As subsequent history so painfully testifies, this type of legislation proved ineffectual on the one occasion when there was a real argument for it. https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/reasonable-restrictions-road-tyranny-mark-steyn/ https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/reasonable-restriction... So now you have both the Atlantic and the National Review claiming this. Are they both mistaken? Lying?
  - Noumenon72 7y ago
    Did the New Yorker plagiarize that last sentence from the Atlanitc? It's in both of your excerpts, almost identically.
    - candybar 7y ago
      I found this fascinating so did a bit of research: Both the National Review article and this piece (https://www.indexoncensorship.org/2012/04/words-and-deeds/ https://www.indexoncensorship.org/2012/04/words-and-deeds/) by Flemming Rose credit Alan Borovoy for having been the original author of that passage (in his 1988 book When Freedoms Collide: The Case for Civil Liberties). The New Yorker article is based on Bob Mankoff interviewing Flemming Rose and it looks like Flemming Rose may have been slightly misquoted in a way that made the attribution less clear: the bit where it says: > In the words of a present-day civil-rights campaigner, pre-Hitler Germany had laws very much like the anti-hate laws of today, and they were enforced with some vigor. As history so painfully testifies, this type of legislation proved ineffectual on the one occasion when there was a real argument for it. Flemming Rose is attributing both sentences - "pre-Hitler Germany had laws very much like the anti-hate laws of today, and they were enforced with some vigor" & "As history so painfully testifies, this type of legislation proved ineffectual on the one occasion when there was a real argument for it." to "a present-day civil-rights campaigner" or Alan Borovoy.

watwut 7y ago

German laws required direct incitement for violence to be actionable offence. During 1930s and before, these people were not prosecuted for antisemitism, but for for literal incitements to violence. Racism (or accusations against race as they called it) were protected by law - unlike accusations against religion which was protected. During that time, Nazi were engaged in quite a lot of political violence. Literal beating people violence. Even laws against violence were not actually really enforced for them. The argument that Nazi somehow had it hard to to pass through censorship is ridiculous. You are literally talking about time when SA were roaming streets beating people and Der Stürmer making up reasons for it. Goebbels went to jail for insulting police chief. Not for anti-semitism. I don't know why you lie, but you do.

iamnothere 7y ago
> I don't know why you lie, but you do. I hate to invoke HN guidelines, but this accusation violates "Assume good faith". Here's another source, this time from the National Review: Remarkably, pre-Hitler Germany had laws very much like the Canadian anti-hate law. Moreover, those laws were enforced with some vigour. During the 15 years before Hitler came to power, there were more than 200 prosecutions based on anti-Semitic speech. And, in the opinion of the leading Jewish organization of that era, no more than 10 per cent of the cases were mishandled by the authorities. As subsequent history so painfully testifies, this type of legislation proved ineffectual on the one occasion when there was a real argument for it. https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/reasonable-restrictions-road-tyranny-mark-steyn/ https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/reasonable-restriction... So now you have both the Atlantic and the National Review claiming this. Are they both mistaken? Lying?
- Noumenon72 7y ago
  Did the New Yorker plagiarize that last sentence from the Atlanitc? It's in both of your excerpts, almost identically.
  - candybar 7y ago
    I found this fascinating so did a bit of research: Both the National Review article and this piece (https://www.indexoncensorship.org/2012/04/words-and-deeds/ https://www.indexoncensorship.org/2012/04/words-and-deeds/) by Flemming Rose credit Alan Borovoy for having been the original author of that passage (in his 1988 book When Freedoms Collide: The Case for Civil Liberties). The New Yorker article is based on Bob Mankoff interviewing Flemming Rose and it looks like Flemming Rose may have been slightly misquoted in a way that made the attribution less clear: the bit where it says: > In the words of a present-day civil-rights campaigner, pre-Hitler Germany had laws very much like the anti-hate laws of today, and they were enforced with some vigor. As history so painfully testifies, this type of legislation proved ineffectual on the one occasion when there was a real argument for it. Flemming Rose is attributing both sentences - "pre-Hitler Germany had laws very much like the anti-hate laws of today, and they were enforced with some vigor" & "As history so painfully testifies, this type of legislation proved ineffectual on the one occasion when there was a real argument for it." to "a present-day civil-rights campaigner" or Alan Borovoy.