This is a ridiculous law. But Liberty, what does "Outlawing neo-Naxis is an obvious choice" mean?

Let them deny it, clearly they are morons and is there a law that says all neo-nazis must be ugly? Or is it just the hate that distorts their faces

At the risk of condoning a slippery-slope situation...YYYEEEESSS!!! I freakin' love it. Anyone who would make the hateful and ignorant claim that such a horrific event never took place deserves exactly what this disgusting man is getting, and more.

What's the quote about all it takes for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing?

DO SOMETHING! The so-called silent majority makes me want to throw things.

It wouldn't be a reasonable limit on free speech in the US, but I certainly understand why they have such a law in those countries. I don't know anything about their constitutions, so I can't comment on the legality. If the people have deemed it an appropriate limit, I don't see why it shouldn't apply to the internet.

Jacrabbit, you're so right! Forget this whole "free-speech" thing we've been clinging to for so long! Let's let the government decide what beliefs are acceptable, and imprison those who disagree!

I never understood those laws, let people research it, and let people choose to believe or disbelieve what the claims.

Researching and denying the Holocaust or any event or even saying the US deserves anything is not hate speech, IMO, unless speech is made directly for the purpose of inciting violence it should be legal because that is what freedom is all about.

If he was passing out fliers and making speeches about how "evil" jews are or that they should be punished or retaliated against then I have a problem with it, this isn't like that.

It may have something to do with what happened in Germany during World War II - we've allowed a number of our civil liberties to be curbed because of 9/11, maybe they feel they're protecting themselves by these laws. If we can do it, why can't they?

Steph, I wish nobody would do it.

I agree.

Your sarcastic wit isn't lost on me, Michelin.

Unfortunately, the point of my posting was lost on you.

Let's recap. I did say, "at the risk of condoning a slippery slope situation" - In no way would I encourage us to abandon our freedom of speech - that's a central value to Americans and something many people around the world can only dream about. To stifle that protection would be criminal.

To stifle such an important piece of history - is CRIMINAL.

And to stand by and shrug our shoulders and do nothing while these thugs deny that anything even happened - is CRIMINAL.

Jacrabbit, you recognize that denying a person's freedom of speech on one matter is a slippery slope, and yet you still love the idea of this man going to prison for having an unpopular belief? You obviously do not believe in the freedom of speech.

And you don't have to stand by and do nothing. You can counter his words with facts. It's pretty simple AND everybody gets to keep their human rights.

I think what Jacrabbit is trying to say is that you should have the freedom to say things, given that everyone agrees and it's a popular opinion.

"Outlawing neo-Nazis is an obvious choice"

Seriously Liberty, what does this line mean?

Hey Mich! I was referring to police and legal action against neo-Nazi activities, such as their children summer camp in Germany.

I see, thanks for the link Liberty.

"To stifle such an important piece of history - is CRIMINAL"

Protection of speech is there to protect the most despicable types of speech, if we follow this reasoning we would only protect the speech we were comfortable with and freedom of speech would be obsolete.

Like I said before, unless you are inciting violence with hate speech then it should be protected - denounced, argued against with facts, and even ignored if that is what it takes, but should not be oppressed.

I wish no one would repress free speech in response to fear but again, considering that six million people died in the Holocaust and that the war cost Germany another seven million lives, being overzealous might be understandable in this case.

Facts are wonderful things, but up against the profound hatred and anger and fear that fueled the Holocaust, they're outgunned.

Steph, Does 'understandable' mean "acceptable"? Because I certainly understand why they have the law, I just don't agree with it.

No, understandable means I can see why they're trying this and I'm not going to condemn them for trying. 13-million lives and the devastation of a world war cast a hell of a shadow over the future.

I'm not sure how anybody can really comment on the suitability of this law without having an intimate understanding of German society. Clearly there are laws everywhere that don't make sense to Americans, however for they may be perfect for a particular culture/society/country.

This is an old law yes? Maybe the wounds are still fresh, and people don't want to hear such statements. Maybe there is actually a risk of certain portions of German society becoming susceptible to such statements. Maybe Germany is waiting for the day that it can have more free speech.

I don't think this law is stupid as a high percentage of people don't seem to be holocaust deniers. Most if not all holocaust deniers seem to insight hate through there statements, so if hateful people are removed from positions where than can insight hate, isn't that particular society better off? Also, you don't have to worry about precedents on the continent because they have a codified system of law right?

Michelin, you did notice the first sentence of Liberty's post, right?

"The trial of a 72-year-old former left-wing terrorist group founder, and current neo-Nazi, began today in Germany."

A quick Google search reveals that this man has an established history of being a hateful troublemaker. He's not just a blogger, or a community organizer, he's a co-conspirator, a bank robber, and a guerilla militant to name a few of his other charming attributes.

I'm all for freedom of speech, but I believe that after you've proven yourself to be full of hate and in hot pursuit of violence, you no longer deserve an audience.

You can make cultural excuses all you want, but I can't help but see red every time a person's free speech is violated. No matter what country they're from or what the reasons may be.

Left-wing....Neo Nazi? That reminds me of something.

I suppose Ayers doesn't deserve to be able to speak either, by this logic.

Jacrabbit, the man should be punished for his terrorist activities. I said the law violated free speech (a basic human right), not that this specific man should be free to walk the streets.

"I'm all for freedom of speech, but I believe that after you've proven yourself to be full of hate and in hot pursuit of violence, you no longer deserve an audience."

There's a big difference between not deserving an audience and being put in prison.

The law isn't in violation of free speech according to the German Constitution (which has specific provisions for Volksverhetzung, basically hate speech meant to incite hatred). It might be here in the U.S., but we still punish hateful people here, even if we have to get them on a technicality.

If we can get this man off the streets - apparently we at least agree that he doesn't deserve to be free to walk them - on a technicality, well I think that's fabulous.

Jacrabbit, I didn't say the law was a violation of German law, or a violation of Germany's version of "free speech". I said it was a violation of free speech as a basic human right.

You know, it wasn't against German law to implement the Holocaust, but that doesn't make it right. The law, even the Constitution, does not have the final word on right and wrong.

Just out of curiosity, why is freedom of speech a basic human right? What are all basic human rights? Who decides this? Is there a list somewhere I look at?

Don't get me wrong, I think freedom of speech is great.

Never mind, I just found the United Nations defined list of basic human rights.

So I guess the UN has the final word

Haha, the UN doesn't have the final word in my book. What constitutes a basic human right is a matter of opinion, I guess. I think it's a basic human right because every human is an individual and entitled to express their individuality. I know that's sort of a goofy way of explaining it, but it's difficult to define what makes something a basic human right.

YOu must look at this law in it's historical context. Germany's position after World War 2. The rise of Hitler was made possible after the reparations of WW1 this was Germany's way of ensuring that didn't happen again.
They still have a constant struggle with neo Nazi groups but as a nation have come to terms with their past ( visit the Jewish museum in Berlin to see that in action)
You cannot equate this law with your own freedom of speech.
The mere fact that bastards like this and David Irving are still finding an audience says that vigilance is still required.

Ceej, are you trying to say this law is necessary in order to prevent another radical group of racists from taking over Germany and possibly starting another Holocaust?

I'm saying that's why it was implemented in 47 and has been amended ever since. Neo Nazi's are still a huge problem in Germany. It's a race hatred law which I'm all for.

It's a restriction of free speech, no matter the reason. Maybe you think it's justified, but you can't deny that.

David Irving is not allowed into my country and I'm all for that. This is inciting hatred not being free to speak your mind. Mass rallies of people who are taken in by these lies. I believe they are very dangerous.
I don't believe in censorship but this is something I feel very strongly about.
I think if either of our countries had such an appalling event in our history they would try everything in their power to stop it happening again.
Genocide/ethnic cleansing is still happening, Rwanda, Bosnia. We've not learned.

Ceej, there isn't a difference between 'inciting hatred' and 'being free to speak your mind'. This comes down to the fact that people don't like what certain people have to say, so you think they don't have the right to say it. I don't care why you don't like it, you are still trying to take away his right to say it.

The most important part of protecting free speech is protecting unpopular speech. Otherwise, the idea is meaningless. Furthermore, like I said before, it's far easier to combat these lies and hateful ideas with truth and positive ideas. When you criminalize a point of view, you give it weight.

But my point is that we both speak from a rarified position of never having to deal with this in our collective history.
I believe it is inciting race hatred and I think they are justified in taking away his right to incite race hatred.
I hope you get to travel to Germany one day (if you haven't already been) and find out first hand.

Reading that I think it may sound condescending but I don't mean for it to be. I am a great believer in travel broadening the mind and providing context, that's my purpose for saying that I hope you get to Germany.
Nuance hard to get across in text.

Ceej, I didn't find it condescending. I don't think I need to travel to Germany to solidify my opinion on the matter, but I do hope that one day I'll get the chance.

I have to say I'm OK with this law. I understand the argument about free speech, but the Holocaust was such a horrible event no one should be able to deny it happened. The world as a whole already has a hard enough time learning from history, to deny something like this is to eventually repeat it.

Well September 11th was a pretty awful event, and we certainly don't want THAT to repeat itself. So maybe we should imprison those nuts who say that it was an inside job or that it didn't happen?

But could you ever see these same nuts being able to hold a rally and convincing thousands of people?