History, Germany, and Free Speech

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

So, in Germany, there are no statues built in honor of the Nazis. Quite the reverse. Flying the Nazi flag is a crime. So is making the Nazi salute.

Germany is ashamed of its Nazi past. It builds monuments remembering the Holocaust, sure, but they are in honor of the people who were persecuted by Nazis and those who fought against the Nazis.

So why is America so different, and who has the better approach?

[LittleRaven]

Germany, like most of its European cousins, lacks the rather uniquely American notion of Freedom of Speech. European monarchs have always had to power to censor people, and as governments evolved into republics, this power was preserved. So the German government has the ability to say 'these ideas shall never be discussed,' and employ the power of the state to make sure it doesn't openly happen.

The Founding Fathers identified censorship by the Crown as one of the many abuses of power that the English government engaged in, and thus took steps to insure that the newly formed American government would be different. Thus, the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Now, this hasn't stopped the US government from engaging in censorship over the centuries, with varying amounts of success, but it does mean that something like what you see in Germany is flat out impossible here. The courts have historically been quite broad in their interpretation of what constitutes 'speech'...flags, salutes, basically anything short of direct action. There are some displays that the courts would probably be ok cracking down on....for instance, if you try to burn a cross next to a black man's house....don't be surprised if the courts don't rush to your defense. But unless your display can reasonably be interpreted as conveying an imminent threat of violence, the courts will probably find it to to be protected.

Which approach is better? Well, I would suggest that history vindicates America here...after all, authoritarians, whatever their ideology, have never managed to take control of our government, something that precious few European nations can boast. Germany's current approach certainly results in fewer Neo-Nazi rallies, but I'm not convinced they actually have fewer fascists. The problem with making political views illegal is that they don't stop existing...they just go underground, and it becomes much more difficult to keep track of them.

And I maintain that in addition to being more effective, America's approach is the more principled. It is not the place of the government to tell people what they can and cannot believe and can and cannot say, and giving government that power risks terrible abuses. 200 years ago, the idea that blacks should be equal to whites was unthinkable, even in the North. 50 years ago, even the most liberal of souls believed homosexuality to be at best a mental illness. I think it very improbable that we have somehow reached peak enlightenment in 2017. It seems likely that ideas we currently consider ridiculous may one day come to be accepted, and people must retain the ability to test their notions in the Marketplace of Ideas without fear of the government deciding that they are out of bounds. We already have Twitter for that.

edit - Changed 'Founding Father' to 'Founding Fathers'

[The Romulan Republic]

I don't think banning the symbols gets rid of the ideology very effectively. Its not like their are no xenophobic Right-wing extremists in Germany today. It can make it easier to identify and crack down on them, maybe, but it can also end up setting dangerous legal precedents and harming innocent people.

A ban on the swastika is also problematic if not carefully worded, because, while the specific design/color scheme of the Nazi swastika is as far as I know fairly unique, the swastika existed as a religious symbol long before the Nazis stole it. Therefore, a total swastika ban can be considered religious discrimination, as well as allowing the Nazis a victory of sorts by accepting their attempt to appropriate a symbol that did not belong to them.

So why do I then support removing Confederate statues and flags? Because they're on public fucking property.

The way I see it, as long as you aren't actually threatening someone, or advocating violence (though granted, flying a Swastika could be seen as implicitly doing both), then you can do what you want on your private property. Likewise, a relic of an unfortunate past can have a legitimate place in a historical film or museum, for example- in the proper context as a historical artifact only, not something to idolize.

But there is no excuse for honoring bigotry on public property (the government is supposed to represent all citizens), or for honoring traitors (what sane government would honor treason against the government on public buildings?).

A complete ban on the Nazi swastika outside of specific approved contexts like a history exhibit or classroom is something I could probably accept though.

Why is America more tolerant of such symbols, though? Probably a lot of factors, including the "reconciliation" after the Civil War (as opposed to the horror or World War II and the Holocaust, followed by de-Nazification), and a strong political, historical, legal, and cultural tradition in support of freedom of speech, dating back to the American Revolution and enshrined in the Constitution.

Edited for clarity.

[GandALF]

I think the Germans are still being overly cautious, symbols or freedom of speech did not lead to Nazi ascendance. By that logic they should also ban statues of Bismarck, the Kaiserreich flag and Nietzsche's writings as they also contributed to the Nazis' rise.

[PerrySimm]

I'm mainly miffed that the trend toward pulling down rebel statues is jeopardizing my occasional hobby of photographing their gigantic posteriors.

[Madner Kami]

Germany, like most of its European cousins, lacks the rather uniquely American notion of Freedom of Speech. European monarchs have always had to power to censor people, and as governments evolved into republics, this power was preserved. So the German government has the ability to say 'these ideas shall never be discussed,' and employ the power of the state to make sure it doesn't openly happen.

Article 5 of the Deutsches Grundgesetz (German Base Law, kind of a Constitution, though Germany technically doesn't have a Constitution):

(1) Everybody has the right to voice his opinion in word, writing and picture and to inform oneself from freely avaible sources unhindered. The freedom of the press and the freedom of reporting by broadcast and picture are guaranteed. Censorship does not happen.
(2) Those rights are limited by specifications from general laws, the rules for protection of the youth and the right of personal honor.
(3) Arts and Sciences, Research and Teaching are free. The Freedom of Teaching does not absolve from faithfulness to the Constitution (meaning the Grundgesetz)

There are a few things that are punishable by law and suppressed by censorship-like means, but they are strictly limited to antidemocratic sentiments and organizations (which in particular is aimed at National Socialists and their kind, due to historical reasons, but also can be applied to radical communists and the like), as well as where it gets into the area of personal slander and the like. Obviously there are cracks in the system and sometimes stupid shit dribbles through these cracks (like the ban on useage of this antinazi pictogram, which was removed by our Constitutional Court), but that there is some sort of general censorship in Germany, is a bunch of hogwash.

[LittleRaven]

There are a few things that are punishable by law and suppressed by censorship-like means, but they are strictly limited to antidemocratic sentiments and organizations (which in particular is aimed at National Socialists and their kind, due to historical reasons, but also can be applied to radical communists and the like), as well as where it gets into the area of personal slander and the like.

I don't think we're in disagreement. There is no censorship in Germany....except for the things that are censored. I'm not saying that Germany is a police state or anything. Just that the German government has powers the US government does not.

And really, we're the weird one here. France, the UK, Italy, China, Canada, Australia...all of them permit the government to restrict speech to a much greater degree than the US does. Hell, most scholars throughout history would have argued that the government needs the censor, how else can it empower the moral guardians society so desperately requires?

[Archon_Wing]

America hasn't started any world wars or adopted an ideology that has led to its downfall.

We also have never put any fascists in power. Abusers like Nixon existed but there were ways to deal with him. Even our current wannabe autocrat Trump has been denied free reign despite having his party control congress.

Pretty good for a 200 year old system.

The situations are incomparable. And despite all this, many Americans figured out on their own the only thing Nazis are good for is ridicule and maybe as passable fertilizer. In any case, I wouldn't claim which is better, but if it works for them, then it works. It is not as clear cut as say comparing against North Korea.

That being said, the US government has done many terrible things across the world. But considering so many of them involve trampling over personal freedom, it makes sense to not yield on these matters for some at least. Because if you concede them, history has shown us it is difficult to get it back. Personally I do not think thoughtcrimes should not be a thing.

[Karha of Honor]

So, in Germany, there are no statues built in honor of the Nazis. Quite the reverse. Flying the Nazi flag is a crime. So is making the Nazi salute.

Germany is ashamed of its Nazi past. It builds monuments remembering the Holocaust, sure, but they are in honor of the people who were persecuted by Nazis and those who fought against the Nazis.

So why is America so different, and who has the better approach?

The Confederacy was more far back compared to WW2. How do they feel about Bismarck? German Unification?

[TGLS]

German Unification? Well, the most recent unification is held in pretty high regard: it was done democratically, with limited bloodshed. The second recent most unification is held in low regard: voters were intimidated, and there was a military invasion. The oldest unification is fairly controversial: it happened through a series of wars that led to Prussia kind of taking over the whole area.

Bismarck has a decidedly mixed reputation. Some things, like uniting the country and health insurance have a lasting legacy. Other things, like Kulturkampf and the anti-socialist laws, are seen as negatives. The political system that he created was bad too, because it fell apart without him. But in general he gets mixed reputation (better on the right, worse on the left), and not bad enough to remove all the monuments or to rename all the streets.