Are Germany's laws on their Nazi legacy wrong?

Thomas wrote:

Still, if there was a vote between Germany's current laws and America's current laws on free speech, I'd vote for the American version. Specifically, I wish our parliament hadn't inserted the paragraph outlawing Holocaust denial into §130 of our penal code in 1994. (See Walter's translation.) I expect this paragraph will help, not hurt, neonazis in the long run because it allows them to pretent they'd been hushed up by law, not refuted by reality.

Well, the pro for American-way free speech laws implies that you would prefer the American-way of privacy as well: everything is public?

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Well, the pro for American-way free speech laws implies that you would prefer the American-way of privacy as well: everything is public?

I can't follow the premise of your question: Why do you think American-way privacy necessarily follows American-way free speech?

0 Replies

Well, isn't privacy and access to information connected to free speech?
Doesn't free speech "function both ways"?

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Well, isn't privacy and access to information connected to free speech?
Doesn't free speech "function both ways"?

I can see that access to information is related to having something valid to say, and privacy can conflict with access to information. But I don't see how the right to say what you want depends on infringements on other people's privacy. Take the example from Craven's original question. If some Neo-Nazi claims that Auschwitz didn't happen, that's a miserable lie, but it doesn't infringe on anybody's privacy. Holocaust denial is despiseable for a number of reasons, but privacy infringement is not one of those reasons. That's why I don't understand your point.

0 Replies

Okay, just had some callow thoughts and typed before properly thinking about it.

(Located my 'legal error' myself ... by now Embarrassed

) [Don't tell anybody that I got a 1.3 in constitutional law :wink: ]

0 Replies

I don't think the American freedom of speech is as sacred as is popularly believed. Some books have been banned from 1700s - and there are texts that are banned to this day - including a number of white supremacist texts. When I had the misfortune to move in with a neo-Nazi when I first came to Boston, he boasted about how many forbidden books he has. The KKK isn't exactly a legally upheld organization either, I believe (this interests me - is KKK banned? Is it an illegal organization? Anyone knows?). There are limits on hate speech - remember the cases from few years back dealing with campuses? What about the listening in on the phone conversations that Ashcroft introduced? And a grip on the media and censoring out what is 'indecent'? America has much stricter 'porn' - or even a hint of it - control than any other country I know of. Scenes are commonly cut out of movies that air 'as is' elsewhere. Howard Stern may not have been punished legally, but was effectively evicted from a number of radio stations because of their fear of overstepping regulations on what is 'legally obscene'. Libel may have weaker limits than elsewhere, but there still are defined boundaries. Whatever. I am not saying that freedom of speech is more limited in the U.S., not at all. But it is limited, even if limits are applied to other things than in say, Germany.
German laws are not dissimilar to those in other European countries, they are very standard. Prohibition of nazi and communist propaganda is a part of many constitutions or legislatures. With Europe's history, quite understandable. And I believe also useful. I am grateful for that.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Take the example from Craven's original question. If some Neo-Nazi claims that Auschwitz didn't happen, that's a miserable lie, but it doesn't infringe on anybody's privacy.

But it does cause harm to the survivors and their families. You don't go to jail when you say Holocaust didn't happen in Germany. You pay fines. Is that so wrong?

0 Replies

Yes - the hurt that is caused by such stupidities is terrible.

0 Replies

dagmaraka
I do not know if there are any banned books in the US but I am pretty sure that the KKK is not .

0 Replies

dlowan

Quote:

Yes - the hurt that is caused by such stupidities is terrible.

Pray tell who is being hurt?

0 Replies

dagmaraka wrote:

You don't go to jail when you say Holocaust didn't happen in Germany. You pay fines. Is that so wrong?

Oh yes, people do go to jail for saying it. Remember the relevant excerpt of §130 of our penal code, as Walter translated it in the beginning of the thread:

"(3) Whoever publicly or in a meeting approves of, denies or renders harmless an act committed under the rule of National Socialism of the type indicated in Section 220a subsection (1), in a manner capable of disturbing the public piece shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine. "

I think this is wrong for two reasons. One, it is tailor-cut to single out the Holocaust among comparable crimes. For example denying or downplaying the crimes of Stalin and Mao for political gain is still perfectly legal. Two, I believe that free discussion is the best weapon we against extremist propaganda. I don't expect any benefits from this law that is worth the cost of censoring free discussion.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

dlowan

Quote:
Yes - the hurt that is caused by such stupidities is terrible.

Pray tell who is being hurt?

Holocaust survivors and their families.

Ever known any? The debate here, about whether to let the specious academic who makes his living denying, it into the country or not - with the consequent detailed media discussion of his views, caused grave distress and - in some cases - reawakening of nightmares and other symptoms in holocaust survivors here.

Members of the younger generations, who have lived with their parent's distress and trauma - and, oftentimes, with the knowledge that their whole extended family in Europe were wiped out - also experience distress when such claims are made.

0 Replies

dlowan

I may have misunderstood. Were you for or against the law? I assumed you were against, was I wrong?
Yes, I knew many people who were survivors of the holocaust. I believe that the law is just simply because if you tell a lie often enough and for a long enough period it will become the truth. We should never forget.

0 Replies

Thanks Thomas, I'd hoped you'd contribute.

BTW, I saw the first real English error I've ever seen you make (and I've paid attention ever since au played the language card on you unfairly).

0 Replies

Thomas, the law is as you say. But how is it used? Do those people really go to jail? I know of no such cases. I am sure there are data on this somewhere, I didn't find any.
I think the fact that KKK is not banned is wrong. If not more than on a symbolic level - what kind of signal does it send to people to tolerate legally a group that is responsible of lynchings, killings, burning, and multitude of other crimes?

0 Replies

Recently, some members of the right-wing German rock band "Landser" got up to 20 months prison on probation.
(You don't go into prison so easy as in the US.)

During my time as a probation officer, I had to deal with some right wings, too.

0 Replies

here is an article on a book banned last year. not sure about the credibility of the source (posted on Angelfire, taken from NewsWithViews.com), but the story was given some attention - thus there should be other sources on this. link to the full article: http://www.angelfire.com/az/sthurston/bannedbook.html

April 4, 2003
NewsWithViews.com

LAS VEGAS, NV -- Irwin Schiff is a well known author with over 500,000 books in print about the economy and the income tax. He is also now amongst the few who have had a book banned by the U.S. Government. On March 19, 2003, Federal Judge Lloyd George ordered Schiff to stop selling his book "The Federal Mafia" which has been in print for over 13 years. According to Schiff the Federal Government is using the American people's preoccupation with the war in Iraq as an opportunity to squelch freedom here at home.

Mr Schiff says, "The 1st Amendment is designed so people can have opinions different from the government and there is no legal basis whatsoever for banning my book. Its all contrived, it's bull***t. The government is banning the book because the information is accurate and correct."

With the exception of the Las Vegas Review Journal, there has been very limited press about this book banning. Mr. Schiff attributes this to the timing of the government's actions. He said,

"The reason there haven't been more articles is that the government banned the book the day the war broke out. A number of people have already told me they wanted to do material but because of the war they couldn't. For example, Alan Combs, of Hannity and Combs, said he couldn't believe they banned my book and that he would love to do something, but they were really pressed because of the war. I really believe the reason they issued their restraining order on the day they did was so the war would cover it up . If there was no war going on, this would be a major story throughout the country. Also, it's fear of an IRS audit that keeps the media in line to a large extent."

0 Replies

Quote:

Judge Muzzles Anti-Tax Book

A federal judge in Las Vegas has permanently enjoined an author there to stop selling his 1990 book The Federal Mafia: How the Federal Government Illegally Imposes and Unlawfully Collects Federal Income Taxes, which advises people to claim zero income in order to avoid paying income tax.
Judge Lloyd D. George wrote that Irwin Schiff and his associates knew that they were "offering fraudulent tax advice" and that the book is false commercial speech, which "is not protected by the First Amendment," adding that it also "does not shield criminal conduct in tax schemes." However, Allen Lichtenstein, who as general counsel of the American Civil Liberties Union in Nevada is representing Schiff, said in the June 17 New York Times that The Federal Mafia "cannot be banned as false commercial speech and does not meet any other criteria for censorship."

source: American Libraries Online

0 Replies

There's a big difference between challenged books and banned books:

ALA: Challenged and Banned Books

Banned Books Online

0 Replies

A Nazi instigator Gerhard Lauck has also been tried in the U.S. during 2001 (I cannot find the result anywhere though!). He was arrested in Denmark and extradited to Germany prior to that, returned to Nebraska in 1999. Last news I found was that the Nebraska Supreme Court has overruled his request to drop the charges.

This is an account from Nebraska Public Radio (from 1995, with an update)
http://net.unl.edu/~swi/pers/nazi.html

And this here is Lauck's own website, where you can purchase Nazi stickers, flags, books... Perfectly legal in the U.S. Again. think of the message it sends to the survivors. I am not one and only know a few survivors or their relatives, but am thoroughly disgusted that this is not banned by law. like porn. or is this more tolerable? less harmfull? http://www.nazi-lauck-nsdapao.com/

0 Replies

Are Germany's laws on their Nazi legacy wrong?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know