5 ms·

Germany doesn't really have freedom of speech What do you mean? (I am German)

• mhd 15y ago
  The whole "Volksverhetzung" thingamajig, i.e. you're not allowed to deny the Holocaust, display swastikas etc. The US has its hate crime laws, but these usually don't restrict free speech in the same way. A few European countries share these specific restrictions by the way (or at least some of them). Including Switzerland.
  • waqf 15y ago
    And in the U.S. you aren't allowed to advocate the violent overthrow of the government, to shout fire in a crowded theater, to distribute child porn or to conspire to blow up airliners. The only difference is that U.S. culture teaches you to believe that those exceptions "aren't covered by free speech", i.e. they don't count because we said so ... just as o1iver thinks about Holocaust-denying.
    • tedunangst 15y ago
      Except your examples aren't really even examples of speech, free or otherwise. Walking around with a swastika on your arm is quite different than actively holocausting people.
      • waqf 15y ago
        For convenience of argument I will retract the child porn example, but "conspiring", "shouting" and "advocating" are much closer to a common-sense understanding of the word "speech" than is "walking around with [any particular symbol] on your arm". Unless you totally missed the words "conspire" and "advocate" in my post, I'm not at all sure what you're trying to say.
        • tedunangst 15y ago
          After you conspire to blow up an airliner, people die. After denying the Holocaust, nobody dies.
          • waqf 15y ago
            Conspiracy does not mean that you carried out the act, or even that you tried to. Besides, people die after someone shouts fire in a crowded theater, but it's still speech.
            • mhd 15y ago
              To take this a bit ad absurdum, so is ordering someone to kill someone else (or a few hundred). I think we shouldn't confuse the dictionary with a legal text.
              • waqf 15y ago
                Good example (I think it's most similar to "conspiracy", though it might depend on what kind of implicit threat is backing up the "order"). btw, I'm not necessarily advocating free speech at all costs. If I'm going after anyone in this thread, it's the U.S. for hypocritically advertising "WE H4Ve phR33 5P34CH!!! unlike u european 1o5erz" and not being upfront about how delicate the line is.
        • mhd 15y ago
          Doesn't the crime of conspiracy at least require one overt act?
          • waqf 15y ago
            Good call, but in the U.S., according to Wikipedia: "The Shabani case illustrates that it is a matter of legislative prerogative whether to require an overt step, or not to require an overt step in any conspiracy statute." So conspiracy without an overt act is not constitutionally protected.
      • lutorm 15y ago
        Well, in the U.S., spending money is seen as speech, leading to many absurdities. So spending money in support of various abhorrent things is apparently the same as just talking about it. Except if it could be construed that you are supporting terrorism, of course, since then all constitutional protections are off.
    • tedunangst 15y ago
      I'll go at this another way. AFAIK, you aren't allowed to do any of those things in Germany either. So it's not really an issue of these things are free speech in one country, and other different things are free speech in another country. It's kind of irrelevant what the US does, Germany has all the same "reasonable" exceptions, but then some more on top.
    • getsat 15y ago
      > in the U.S. you aren't allowed to advocate the violent overthrow of the government Yes, you can. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
  • zura 15y ago
    I wish we had the same restrictions regarding communist symbolism here in East Europe.
  • arethuza 15y ago
    How much influence did the Americans, British and French (as occupying powers) have on those laws in what was originally Western Germany?
    • mhd 15y ago
      Yes, it originally was part of Allied regulations in the occupied territories and was basically included as is in the new German constitution.
      • arethuza 15y ago
        Seems rather unfair then for people (especially Britains, Americans and French) to criticise Germany for these laws when they were actually imposed on the country!
        • mhd 15y ago
          This is a pretty complicated subject. Just because they were in existence before doesn't exactly rule out that they weren't wanted in Germany. Or even needed. The general trend was to both forget and prevent. So banning certain symbols, books, movies from the public eye was generally considered to be what's best. I know, it's not that easy, which caused a lot of problems later on and still is pretty hard to deal with. And I don't get that much criticism about the laws. Yes, Americans generally look quite astonished on any country perceived to have fewer freedoms (and "socialist Europe" certainly applies for that), but the Brits and French usually don't mock us for that. They tend to be quite more panicked whenever some neo-nazis appear, and if they were using the original symbols this might get worse. (Never mind that France has laws against holocaust deniers, too.)
• deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]