Freedom of Speech doesn't cover Holocaust denial, Germany's top court rules

Forums:
Email this Topic • Print this Page

The Local de 3rd August 2018

Germany's jailed "Nazi grandma" Ursula Haverbeck, 89, on Friday lost a challenge before the country's highest court, which reaffirmed that constitutional free speech guarantees do not cover Holocaust denial.

Haverbeck started her latest prison term in May for insisting that Nazi Germany's mass murder of millions of Jews and others was "only a belief" and that Auschwitz was "not historically proven" to have been a death camp.

German law makes it illegal to deny the genocide committed by Adolf Hitler's regime, which in the Auschwitz-Birkenau camp in occupied Poland alone claimed some 1.1 million lives, mostly of European Jews.

Holocaust denial and other forms of incitement to hatred against segments of the population carry up to five years in prison, while the use of Nazi symbols such as swastikas is also banned.

The Constitutional Court ruled that "punishment for denying the National Socialist genocide is fundamentally compatible with Article 5 (1) of the Basic Law," which guarantees freedom of speech.

"The dissemination of claims that are proven to be untrue and of deliberately false assertions" was not covered by free speech, the court ruled, adding that Holocaust denial "breaches the limits of peaceful public

debate and represents a disruption of the public peace".

Haverbeck, who was once chairwoman of a far-right training centre shut down in 2008 for spreading Nazi propaganda, was convicted in October last year on eight counts of incitement and sentenced to two years behind bars.

She had previously been sentenced on several occasions to jail for denying the Nazi genocide, once declaring on television that "the Holocaust is the biggest and most sustained lie in history".

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 1 • Views: 1,598 • Replies: 61

[+3] - izzythepush - 07/25/2019Don't conflate Israel's behaviour with the Holocaust. Holocaust denial is wrong, it starts the process of rehabilitating the Nazis and makes another one much more likely. Allowing hate speech...

@alphabeta,

Amazing how some people's brains are constituted. Makes one wonder what else in their reality are upside down, even admitting that we are all subjective animals.

0 Replies

Free Speech means Free Speech... even for Nazis.

The US constitution ensures Free Speech, apparently the German constitution doesn't. I think the US has this right as far as democratic values.

I do not believe that a democratic government should be in the business of deciding which opinions are acceptable, and which are punishable with prison time.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Free Speech means Free Speech... even for Nazis.

The US constitution ensures Free Speech, apparently the German constitution doesn't. I think the US has this right as far as democratic values.

I do not believe that a democratic government should be in the business of deciding which opinions are acceptable, and which are punishable with prison time.

These freedoms, which include the freedom of expression, aren't absolute in the US, though. Several states have passed prohibitive state law bills against companies engaging in the BDS movement. Their constitutionality are being challenged in federal district courts.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

There is a difference though between "barring government contracts and government jobs to neonazis" and "making it an outright crime to espouse neonazi viewpoints".

The US government is not threatening to jail anyone for expressing neonazi beliefs. Neonazis are just being denied government contracts and government jobs.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

It's constitutionality is being challenged in federal courts.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

It's constitutionality is being challenged in federal courts.

BDS refers to "Boycott, Divest and Sanction" which involves political opposition to Israel.

It is a perfect example of free speech on a very controversial issue.... many Americans believe that the actions of Israel in the occupied territories is immoral and is equivalent to the apartheid state of South Africa. Other American believe that Israel is justified and that the opposition is a form of anti-semitism.

Both of these sides have the right to express their beliefs without government interference.

The BDS movement already won a victory in court in Texas. I am pretty sure these anti-BDS laws will lose in court because they violate the First Amendment.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I am pretty sure these anti-BDS laws will lose in court because they violate the First Amendment.

Does the First Amendment give neonazis the right to have government jobs or government contracts?

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Yes. It does.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

We'll see if the Supreme Court agrees.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

I recall some cases of police officers being fired because they made racist posts on Facebook. Also some cases where police officers were fired because they were members of a racist organization.

As far as I remember from the news articles, these police officers did not do anything untoward or unprofessional while they were on duty as a police officer.

Should these police departments be forced to rehire them (and pay them back pay)?

2 Replies

@oralloy,

The question about who is a "neonazi" is clearly subjective (subjective means that some people you think are neonazis aren't neonazis to me). Unless someone self-identifies as a neo-nazi (i.e. says "I am a neo-nazi") then it is a matter of your opinion.

Sometimes in the past you have stated your subjective opinions as if they count as facts.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

It looks like there is a right to fire someone for their political beliefs but not their religious beliefs. That seems like an odd distinction to me... but then God told me to hate immigrants and oppose immigrants, so maybe it doesn't matter.

In my opinion, police are a special case. I don't care if the guy filling in potholes is a Nazi. As long as he does is job, why would I care. Treating people fairly is part of the job description of a police officer. I did a little googling, I don't know if US law makes this distinction.

Federal Government employees are a special case, as they should be.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

The question about who is a "neonazi" is clearly subjective (subjective means that some people you think are neonazis aren't neonazis to me). Unless someone self-identifies as a neo-nazi (i.e. says "I am a neo-nazi") then it is a matter of your opinion.

BDS goons falsely accuse Israel of imaginary atrocities, and they try to rally people to react to these imaginary atrocities by harming Israel.

That they try to disguise their antisemitism by directing their false accusations of imaginary atrocities "at Israel" instead of "at Jews" does not change a thing.

So there is no question that BDS goons are neonazis.

maxdancona wrote:

Sometimes in the past you have stated your subjective opinions as if they count as facts.

No I haven't. Let's see even one example of me doing such a thing.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

It looks like there is a right to fire someone for their political beliefs but not their religious beliefs.

Neonazism is a political belief. So that would mean that BDS goons are not immune from being fired.

maxdancona wrote:

In my opinion, police are a special case. I don't care if the guy filling in potholes is a Nazi. As long as he does is job, why would I care. Treating people fairly is part of the job description of a police officer. I did a little googling, I don't know if US law makes this distinction.

There is no evidence that I am aware of that any of these police officers treated anyone unfairly. My understanding is that they were fired solely for factors that were unrelated to their job performance.

maxdancona wrote:

Federal Government employees are a special case, as they should be.

What makes them special?

0 Replies

@oralloy,

This is another example of you pushing a subjective opinion and insisting it is an unquestionable fact. You are setting up your own definition of what a "neo-nazi" in such a way that you can choose who fit in that designation.

I am questioning your unquestionable fact. QED.

You do this a lot Oralloy, confusing your own opinions with facts.

It isn't just you... some liberals are saying that Trump supporters are neo-nazis. You and them both call people neo-nazis... but you have very different views about who fits in that group. That is the definition of "subjective".

I wish that ideologues on both sides would stop referring to their political opponents as Nazis. But that is just my subjective opinion.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

This is another example of you pushing a subjective opinion and insisting it is an unquestionable fact. You are setting up your own definition of what a "neo-nazi" in such a way that you can choose who fit in that designation.

This is silly. Someone who goes around falsely accusing Jews of imaginary atrocities, and who tries to rally people to harm Jews because of those imaginary atrocities, is very much a neonazi.

If the neonazi tries to obfuscate by directing their false accusations of imaginary atrocities "at Israel" instead of "at Jews", that changes nothing.

maxdancona wrote:

I am questioning your unquestionable fact. QED.

The facts speak for themselves.

maxdancona wrote:

You do this a lot Oralloy, confusing your own opinions with facts.

No I don't. And you can't point out any examples of me having done so.

maxdancona wrote:

It isn't just you... some liberals are saying that Trump supporters are neo-nazis. You and them both call people neo-nazis... but you have very different views about who fits in that group.

I imagine that some neonazis do support Trump, but there are plenty of Trump supporters who are not neonazis.

maxdancona wrote:

That is the definition of "subjective".

Leftists deny reality all the time. This does not mean that facts are subjective. It just means that leftists often deny reality.

maxdancona wrote:

I wish that ideologues on both sides would stop referring to their political opponents as Nazis. But that is just my subjective opinion.

It is highly unlikely that I will label someone a neonazi if they aren't falsely accusing Jews (or Israel) of imaginary atrocities.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Not surprised to see you take the side of the Nazis, why change the habit of a lifetime.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

This is silly. Someone who goes around falsely accusing Jews of imaginary atrocities, and who tries to rally people to harm Jews because of those imaginary atrocities, is very much a neonazi.

The current Israeli Jews are taking land away from Palestinians against international laws. That's a crime against humanity, and the very definition of an atrocity. It's not imaginary.

Quote:

International law and Israeli settlements
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
The international community considers the establishment of Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories illegal under international law, violating Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 which states: "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."

I have visited Israel two times, and observed the settlements. They have created walls around the Palestinian land. The Israelis also have armed guards on the roads where Palestinians cannot travel. That makes Israel not a democracy that the United States government would have us believe. How would you feel if somebody came to your home, chased you out, and took over your property with guns? If you don't see that as a crime, your reality isn't normal.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Israeli West Bank barrier - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_West_Bank_barrier
The Israeli West Bank barrier or wall is a separation barrier in the West Bank or along the Green Line. Israel considers it a security barrier against terrorism, while Palestinians call ... Barrier opponents claim it seeks to annex Palestinian land under the guise of security and undermines peace negotiations by unilaterally ...
‎Timeline · ‎Effects on Palestinians · ‎Legality · ‎Opinions of the barrier

They claim it's a security barrier against terrorism. They have their concept of terrorism in reverse.

3 Replies

Forums
» Freedom of Speech doesn't cover Holocaust denial, Germany's top court rules

Read Question
Reply to All

Freedom of Speech doesn't cover Holocaust denial, Germany's top court rules

Quick Links

My Account

able2know