Article on free speech and the German persecution of Jews

Post Reply New Topic

I thought others here might like to see this interesting article (http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2012/04/words-and-deeds/).

Comments?

The viewpoint this article is refuting - that a lack of censorship was to blame - strikes me as a European thing... In the United States, this article probably wouldn't be necessary in the first place.

Playing on the holocaust to support censorship... how low can some people get =\

This isn't precisely on-topic, but I have to say that the movie "The Infiltrator" (1995) gives a rare look at Neo-Nazis in Germany in modern times. It's based on the true story of Yaron Svoray, an Israeli-American reporter who got unexpectedly rounded up by the German police with the group of Neo-Nazis he was investigating, and had to pretend to the racists that he was one of them in order to survive. While mixed up with them, he learned much more than he wished he had, but of course used the unusually up-close experience to shed light on what goes on in Germany, and to try and promote more action by the authorities. Ironically, his whole family is from Germany. Not for the faint-of-heart, but a must-see for those who want to be informed.

The article seems to be making a sharp distinction between "hate speech" and political activity based on racism or anti-semitism, to the extent that regulations or constitutions can ban particular types of parties (as they do in some countries) they could have been effective. Of course, restricting the right to organize groups devoted to the overthrow of the state might have been of more immediate use.

The article is very misleading in relation prosecution of right wing extremists, which remained far lighter than for their left wing counterparts. Thus while the author touts how the prosecution of some propagandists failed to prevent the rise of Nazism it pays no attention to the fact that Hitler not only received a pass for hate speech but rapidly received a parole (for which he shouldn't even have been eligible) even when imprisoned for treason. It's difficult to argue that removing Hitler or the national socialist party from the picture would have had no effect on the course of events. But one can't really expect the courts to have dealt with hate speech when they couldn't even be bothered to punish treason.

Anything short of whipping up a lynch mob or fomenting a riot should not be legally prohibited.

ruveyn

What about defamation? Hate speech directed against an entire group of people is also a form of libel / slander, imho. Why is it a crime to spread lies about and ruin the reputation of an individual, but it's ok to do the exact same thing to a group of people?

Not censorship but the protection of minorities against hate speech and its consequences, which range from the suicide of gay teenagers and the murder of abortion doctors to atrocities such as the holocaust.