4 ms·

> There are historical reasons to think that curbing extremist speech protects democracy (see the Weimar Republic). You think the Weimar Republic is a point in

> There are historical reasons to think that curbing extremist speech protects democracy (see the Weimar Republic). You think the Weimar Republic is a point in favor of that claim? In my research, I looked into what actually happened in the Weimar Republic and found that, contrary to what most people think, Germany did have hate‐speech laws that were applied quite frequently. The assertion that Nazi propaganda played a significant role in mobilizing anti‐Jewish sentiment is irrefutable. But to claim that the Holocaust could have been prevented if only anti‐Semitic speech had been banned has little basis in reality. Leading Nazis, including Joseph Goebbels, Theodor Fritsch, and Julius Streicher, were all prosecuted for anti‐Semitic speech. And rather than deterring them, the many court cases served as effective public relations machinery for the Nazis, affording them a level of attention that they never would have received in a climate of a free and open debate. In the decade from 1923 to 1933, the Nazi propaganda magazine Der Stürmer — of which Streicher was the executive publisher — was confiscated or had its editors taken to court no fewer than 36 times. The more charges Streicher faced, the more the admiration of his supporters grew. In fact, the courts became an important platform for Streicher’s campaign against the Jews. Alan Borovoy, general counsel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Foundation, points out that cases were regularly brought against individuals on account of anti‐Semitic speech in the years leading up to Hitler’s takeover of power in 1933. “Remarkably, pre‐Hitler Germany had laws very much like the Canadian anti‐hate law,” he writes. “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… https://www.cato.org/policy-report/may/june-2015/war-free-expression https://www.cato.org/policy-report/may/june-2015/war-free-ex...

tetranomiga 5y ago
An American libertarian think-tank is not a source of historical interpretation I'm going to trust at face value and neither should you. I'll reply more thoroughly to this after work.
hodgesrm 5y ago
This is a great comment. It seems to me that some in the US far right and left wings have an analogous view of using the political system as a way to garner publicity rather than governing. It's less obvious in the court cases. Many of the people associated with the Jan 6 attack on the Capitol folded pretty rapidly once they were indicted.
onemoresoop 5y ago
I did not know that, thanks for pointing out.
tetranomiga 5y ago
> In the decade from 1923 to 1933, the Nazi propaganda magazine Der Stürmer — of which Streicher was the executive publisher — was confiscated or had its editors taken to court no fewer than 36 times. Streicher and his fellow editors were already active members of the NSDAP (Nazi party) during the 1920s. Streicher and other editors were taken to court, yes, but the assertion that it was for the content of his magazine and not actions like the Hitlerputsch is not something I can find support for in any source. > Alan Borovoy, general counsel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Foundation, points out that cases were regularly brought against individuals on account of anti‐Semitic speech in the years leading up to Hitler’s takeover of power in 1933. Antisemitism was alive and well in the Weimar Republic, the claim that people were taken to court for antisemitic speech is another one that I can't find a source for. People were taken to court for violence against Jews, as they were still full German citizens in the Weimar Republic. I looked up the passages of the Weimar Republic constitution around religion and freedom of assembly and there is nothing about hate speech or similar kinds of discrimination. One of the major causes of increasing violence against Jews was Der Stürmer and similar publications, because they could be circulated without impunity. In fact, I looked up Alan Borovoy's quote, he said: > During the 15 years before Hitler came to power, there were more than 200 prosecutions based on anti-Semitic speech. I find this number of 200 interesting, because 200 is roughly the same number as Jewish cemeteries that were desecrated between 1923 and 1933, and makes me suspicious that he's taking court cases about desecration and equating them with hate-speech - which are obviously not the same things. > In einer regelrechten Schändungswelle wurden zwischen 1923 und 1932 fast 200 Fälle registriert [1] Sorry it's in German, but it should be easy to translate. In any case, the passages you posted have no substance other than a quote from one guy that from anything I can see seems to be conflating two different things to support his argument. [1] https://www.historisches-lexikon-bayerns.de/Lexikon/Antisemitismus_(Weimarer_Republik) https://www.historisches-lexikon-bayerns.de/Lexikon/Antisemi...

tetranomiga 5y ago

An American libertarian think-tank is not a source of historical interpretation I'm going to trust at face value and neither should you. I'll reply more thoroughly to this after work.

hodgesrm 5y ago

This is a great comment. It seems to me that some in the US far right and left wings have an analogous view of using the political system as a way to garner publicity rather than governing. It's less obvious in the court cases. Many of the people associated with the Jan 6 attack on the Capitol folded pretty rapidly once they were indicted.

onemoresoop 5y ago

I did not know that, thanks for pointing out.

tetranomiga 5y ago

> In the decade from 1923 to 1933, the Nazi propaganda magazine Der Stürmer — of which Streicher was the executive publisher — was confiscated or had its editors taken to court no fewer than 36 times. Streicher and his fellow editors were already active members of the NSDAP (Nazi party) during the 1920s. Streicher and other editors were taken to court, yes, but the assertion that it was for the content of his magazine and not actions like the Hitlerputsch is not something I can find support for in any source. > Alan Borovoy, general counsel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Foundation, points out that cases were regularly brought against individuals on account of anti‐Semitic speech in the years leading up to Hitler’s takeover of power in 1933. Antisemitism was alive and well in the Weimar Republic, the claim that people were taken to court for antisemitic speech is another one that I can't find a source for. People were taken to court for violence against Jews, as they were still full German citizens in the Weimar Republic. I looked up the passages of the Weimar Republic constitution around religion and freedom of assembly and there is nothing about hate speech or similar kinds of discrimination. One of the major causes of increasing violence against Jews was Der Stürmer and similar publications, because they could be circulated without impunity. In fact, I looked up Alan Borovoy's quote, he said: > During the 15 years before Hitler came to power, there were more than 200 prosecutions based on anti-Semitic speech. I find this number of 200 interesting, because 200 is roughly the same number as Jewish cemeteries that were desecrated between 1923 and 1933, and makes me suspicious that he's taking court cases about desecration and equating them with hate-speech - which are obviously not the same things. > In einer regelrechten Schändungswelle wurden zwischen 1923 und 1932 fast 200 Fälle registriert [1] Sorry it's in German, but it should be easy to translate. In any case, the passages you posted have no substance other than a quote from one guy that from anything I can see seems to be conflating two different things to support his argument. [1] https://www.historisches-lexikon-bayerns.de/Lexikon/Antisemitismus_(Weimarer_Republik) https://www.historisches-lexikon-bayerns.de/Lexikon/Antisemi...