Free Speech Or 'intolerance Of Intolerance'
MonsieurEvil
Join Date: 2002-01-22 Member: 4Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
Join Date: 2002-01-22 Member: 4Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">What do you consider more important?</div> In many countries (we'll use Germany, where it's very clearly defined by law), certain anti-social political groups and gangs of likeminded people are outlawed federally. In Germany for example, it's anything which smacks of Naziism. Waving a swastika flag, wearing nazi paraphernalia, doing a hitler salute, organizing a parade of skinheads, etc. is against the law and will get you chucked in jail. It's often easy to understand how these laws came into being - people were fearful of a repeat of history, so they outlawed these evil aspects of their past in order to avoid them in the future. The problem is, a country ceases to have an equal measure of civil rights for their citizens at that point. Who decides what's evil and what's not? A group of communists favoring a return to Stalinism is protected under civil liberties laws in that same country (if I understand it correctly), and they could advocated the same sort of behavior, up to and including the Pogroms that killed thousands of Jews and stripped them of property.
Can the double-standard exist? Should it exist? Would you have it exist?
Can the double-standard exist? Should it exist? Would you have it exist?
Comments
Isn't remembering history part of avoiding it's mistakes? If you force neo-nazis underground they will still exist, only below peoples radars where they can't know about them and can't do anything to really fight against their beliefs. Let's say Communism were illegal in the US and schools couldn't teach about it, wouldn't this give underground Communists the power to recruit uneducated young people on a whim?Bottom line censorship takes away peoples basic right to respond and understand to things as individuals, and that is never good.
--
To understand the following, one should always remember the first article of the German constitution:
"A humans dignity must not be touched."
This article is not only put at the most prominent position of German jurisdiction, it's also especially protected (it and the twentieth article, which defines the Federal Republic as a "democratic, federal, and libertarian state" are the only two which can not be changed by any authority). Any other piece of German jurisdiction is supposed to be founded on it. Thus, German jurisdiction allows cuts into free speech in one case: If this special use of free speech would actively aim on harming another persons - or group of persons - dignity.
Coming back from dry theory, I'll now have to correct and clarify MonsE in a few instances.
First and foremost, despite the impression one might get at first glance, not anything connected to the Third Reich is prohibited in Germany. In fact, National Socialism has been topic of more books, movies, TV documentaries, theatre plays, and other means of cultural reflection than any other subject for the last fifty years. In history education, the Third Reich takes up two to three years depending on which federal state you are in.
And in all these treatments of the subject, you'll find any kind of Nazi praphernalia - signs, symbols, songs, propaganda movies, even excerpts from 'Mein Kampf' - with great ease. In the language of lawyers, that's because all this serves 'educational purposes' and does thus not aim on hurting somebodys dignity. This educational purpose is assumed for most kinds of media unless proven otherwise by a trial, in which case the product is considered 'Volksverhetzung' and censored.
<span style='font-size:9pt;line-height:100%'>(On a sidenote, the technophobe German jurisdiction has as of yet not extended the assumption of educational value on computer games, which means that RTCW must not display swasticas or other Nazi symbols in the German version. A schizophrenic situation, which I don't assume to continue for much longer.)</span>
This all means that a lot of right-extremist propaganda is available in Germany, as well. The band 'B?hse Onkelz', for example, made a kind of game out of tempting the authorities with 'clean', but highly extremist texts for several years without of being censored once. You've got to obviously and evidently have crossed the line to be censored, but once you start singing about how much better the world would be without all those 'dirty <insert favorite ethnicy here>' and then start making suggestions as to how to achieve that situation, you're in for it.
So much for free speech in media. Now for political acts, such as demonstrations.
Here, we'll have to tackle article twenty of the constitution, which did, as I already mentioned, include a loose definition of the FRGs political system.
As long as a poltical party can be fit into this frame, it's protected from <i>any</i> kind of prosecution based on its political ideals. The German Surpreme Court even went one step further and ruled in the 50s that any kind of poltical group not actively attempting to overthrow the system should recieve the same protection. Thus, the German communist party and a few parties trying to inherit Hitlers NSDAP were banned - socialist parties that don't actively strife for the revolution and right-extremist parties that accept the framework of the constitution are however safe. THe NPD, for example, a righty party that's considered gathering pool for Neo-Nazis, did just recently win a trial in front of the Surpreme Court because it clearly employed democratic means to achieve its ends.
A demonstration organized by the NPD will thus not be prohibited unless other reasons (such as the demonstration of autonomous groups two blocks away) speak against it, while a group of Neo-Nazis waving black-white-red flags and swasticas will not be allowed to demonstrate.
Looking at those standards, it quickly becomes apparent why Germanys cuts into free speech seem to be by far more drastic on the right than on the left: The most right extremist ideologies are in some way based on the active (and often violent) rejection of a different ethnic group - be that the Jews, the Blacks, the Indians, or the Christians. These ideologies do thus carry a violation of the first article in their very heart. They're prosecuted independently from the twentieth article.
Many left-extremist leaders (Stalin definetely the most prominent amongst them) did also commit ethinticy based crimes, but those crimes were their 'personal sins', while the teachings they operated on didn't take direct aim on any ethnicy (unless you count the rich as such, of course). Left-extremists will thus have to violate the twentieth article, which can be more easily avoided, to be prosecuted.
Note however that the prosecution of left extremists, especially the RAF, did nonetheless take up the by far larger part of Germanys political prosecutions for years (until the RAF gave up).
--
Now, for my personal opinion: I consider the limitation of freedom of speech by the dignity of fellow humans a good and sensible principle. Personal rights end where other personal rights begin, and the deterogation of another human being, or worse, a group of human beings, can in no case be justified by somebodys need for personal expression, much like the first punch in a bar fight can't be justified by the attackers need for another chair.
The second case, I'm not so happy with. On the one hand, it is sensible for a democratic state to defend itself against the attacks of a minority striving to overrule the majority; I'm however not convinced that the effectiviness of the way this general idea is put through in Germany is in a sensible relation with the power those established in the system can obtain through it.
And what we see in really dire circumstances is, that the state will still try to defy it's own legislation. I saw on some show a few weeks ago, I do believe it was 60 minutes, that a lawyer who took up the defence of a terrorism charged person, was herself charge with terroist propaganda, when all she did was to relay a press release of said accused person.
If a state promotes complete freedom of speech, it will always find a way to try and back down on it's own promises due to some or other excuse - national security or whatnot. So let's come out of the bushes on it. Still, having those safeguards and having them challenged now and then is still a lot better than none, and the state doing whatever it sees fit in Machiavellian ways.
What I don't understand though is how you can define 'touching of one's dignity', and have any hopes of fair enforcement. Is it unconstitutional for me to push you into a mud puddle and everyone standing around to point and laugh at you? Where do you draw the line? And the point you make about how the law is applied unevenly based on right or left wing leanings I find rather hypocritical. How can you truly justify saying a pinko that hates the government is any better or worse than a fascist that hates the government?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You have a very good point there, Mr. Evil.
It simply depends on what happens to be politically correct at the moment.
What I don't understand though is how you can define 'touching of one's dignity', and have any hopes of fair enforcement. Is it unconstitutional for me to push you into a mud puddle and everyone standing around to point and laugh at you? Where do you draw the line? And the point you make about how the law is applied unevenly based on right or left wing leanings I find rather hypocritical. How can you truly justify saying a pinko that hates the government is any better or worse than a fascist that hates the government? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, in some countries child porn is not just prohibited, which must be most if not all countries, but even drawing , trading and possessing art which depicts minors in sexual acts is illegal - even if it is based on pure imaginiation and no one was harmed during the drawing. Does that fall in under the category of freedom of expression? It would perhaps fall into the category of harming someones dignity. I'd sure like if that particular act of expression couldn't find coverage under the freedom of expression act. And thus I must take the stand point that freedom of expressions is, as all kinds of freedom, a supposedly relative freedom provided you have a certain responsibility and conform to a certain extent. Question is, are the system you live under overtly or subvertly hampering your freedom of expression. It is never nice to have ones ability to utter oneself limited, but at least I like it when the limits are explicit and not hidden.
It's really hard to convince an American of something like what the Germans do, because our Constitution was written to withstand political correctness and current social trends - the idea is to error on the side of freedom, so that people cannot slowly infringe on more 'acceptable' rights down the line. Rather than defining free speech with flexible interpretation, as in the German constitution (which allows some sort of majoritively unpopular behavior to be suppressed), we say 'do as you will, it is your opinion, and your opinion cannot be taken away from you'. And if you find freedom of speech being used as a weapon against you, based on lies (legal slander), you have a way to find satisfaction via civil courts at no expense.
I also think that this system is quite ok, although it has some flaws in it (some censoreship measures are too harsh imho).
I think in almost every democratic country there are laws that cover pretty much everythings that could be considered to be "bad" or "unfair".
So for example if lil MonsE and his buddies are bullying lil Nem0 on the schoolyard again, they in fact violate the law.
They are hurting him, wich goes against the Nem0's right to be physically unharmed ("Das Recht auf körperliche Unversehrtheit").
They are also humiliating him, wich goes against the protection of Nem0's dignity, that the german law gives him.
So why don't Nem0's parents now sue MonsE's parents?
Because of the relations.
Children on the schoolyard are mean (I know what I'm talking about... i hated school for that) and rude, but after all that's not much more that "social problems" between the kids.
If you imagine how much a lawsuit costs, the complete law system would break down if everybody would sue everybody else for such things.
Now when we get back to the point of "freedom", may it be freedom of speech or general freedom of expression, then we have to keep in mind that, no matter how dumb this may sound, freedom does have limits.
In a very very basic system the personal freedom of a person ends, where he invades the personal freedom of another person... It's a simple "I don't want to get hurt, you don't want to get hurt, so let's both agree not to hurt each other".
When people live together in groups, tribes and later states/countries there have to be rules that protect this "body" of individuals.
The first goal of any political system is to protect itself against elements that want to destroy the system. Securing the freedom of the citicens has to be under this goal or else you will get anarchy.
While I think freedom of speech (in this case expressing political views) should be censored in very few cases, a general "freedom of expression" is a thing, that you will never experience (unless we are all turned into hindless Hippies by some cosmic radiation). This is simply because "expression" can mean a lot... for example i can express my anger about something by stabbing a rondom guy in the face.
I think nobody would think that I just used my right of freedom of expression, would he?
Another simple example... MonsE feels a sudden hate for all the materialistic **** running the big companies by walking around without any material... naked in the city.
Don't you think the police would come and arrest him?
You see, freedom always has limits... those limits are made by the society and changed by the society or their representative.
I apologize for just throwing in random thoughts... it's late and i have some trouble connecting all my thoughts to a big one... but I think you guys get the picture.
Every year in Cincinnati at Christmas time, the KKK puts a cross on fountain square. And every year people protest. I personally am glad they do. Aside from reaffirming the depth to which speech is a fundamental right, I want to be reminded that there are people in the world who still think like that. It doesn't do anyone any good pretending they don't exist.
there is absolutely no reason to deny anyone's right to free speech, when it comes to speech, anyway. many times, though, a speech being given will incite a mob to riot, or charge up a group of (it's late i can't think of a better term) haters into beating those who they hate. you cannot tell someone that what they are saying is wrong. the very nature of ignorance(not knowing that you do not know) limits what you can and can not say about who is right and who is wrong on certain subjects. it is this reason that i protest the US making moves against different nations of the world currently experiencing upheaval, it is not our place to tell them what is right and what is wrong, all we know is what made us powerful and, to an extent, corrupt.
back to speech, this concept can be taken to speech as well, it is no one's place to tell another whether they are right or wrong, and, if someone tries to tell you what they think, no matter how convoluted and evil it may seem to you, they have every right to say it. when this speech turns to physical abuse, when this speech incites riots, that is when it is in need of restricting. no one has the right to harm another for any reason. at all.
so there, free speech in a nutshell, you may speak all you want, as long as you do not follow your speech with actions. the hate people and their demonstrations serve to show us differing view points. if we limit free speech, we limit our own view and scope on the world.
<b>MonsE:</b>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->What I don't understand though is how you can define 'touching of one's dignity', and have any hopes of fair enforcement. Is it unconstitutional for me to push you into a mud puddle and everyone standing around to point and laugh at you? Where do you draw the line?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Slow down a little, please.
First, you should keep in mind that the US also have legislation for the defense of a persons dignity, with an actually quite comparable counterpart in Germany: The laws against slander you already cited.
This kind of legislation can however only defend you from attacks specified against you, the individual person:
If I said that you, Ned Pyle, are a thief and rapist, you could drag me in front of a trial and had a fair chance of winning. (Please note that this was an example and not meant seriously. Stop looking for your lawyers cellphone number.) If I said, however, that all sysadmins are thieves and rapists, the whole issue would become a lot less clear.
Now consider that German legislation doesn't start filing something as 'Volksverhetzung' unless it goes one step further and doesn't only state that all sysadmins are thieves and rapists, but also aims to incite physical acts against them, and you'll have to admit that your mud-example doesn't hold water anymore.
In other words, the line which has to be crossed to justify a true censorship (i.e. the deprivation of freedom of speech) is quite clearly cut: It is drawn when the dignity of a group of persons is attacked so throughoutly that it can be understood as a suggestion of harming this group.
I hope this also clears up a misconception summed up by Crystal: This legislation does not depend on political correctness.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And the point you make about how the law is applied unevenly based on right or left wing leanings I find rather hypocritical. How can you truly justify saying a pinko that hates the government is any better or worse than a fascist that hates the government? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<span style='color:purple'>* Nemesis Zero looks at his first post.</span>
No idea how one could justify saying that, because I didn't. I merely stated that many right-extremist groups base themselves on the active rejection of ethnic minorities as well as the current political system and are thus subject to one more sort of prosecution than many left extremists, which base themselves on the active rejection of the system, period. I merely noted that the righties tend to break one more law, which is not a morally judging statement.
Also note (again) that the amount of prosecution of left extremist groups did in fact take much bigger extents for the larger part of the Federal Republics history.
To put it into perspective: When the RAF, a group consisting of no more than two dozen active members, was at its heights, police officers with MP5s patrooled the streets of the city I live in. When a group of more than one hundred right extremists burned an asylants shelter down ten years ago in a small city in Saxony, not one gun was pointed at them.
Does that look like a left leaning bias in political prosecution?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I wonder though if the time has come, after 60 years, to remove those 'naziifcation' barriers and go more truly into the realm of free speech. At this point you're no longer suppressing an ideal that has the slightest hope of returning to the fore in Germany. One hopes, at least.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In part, I agree with you - the banning of Nazi symbols, for example, always seemed to be obsolete to me, especially since it doesn't achieve much - new symbols can be made up much faster than they can be outlawed.
Looking at the ideological 'hard core' of nazism (p.e. 'Mein Kampf'), however, I'd argue that they are just inherently violating both the first and the twentieth article in too many too severe ways to completely rehabilitate them.
One should however note that these censorships are, while not lifted, tackled, as well. 'Mein Kampf' may for example be read publically by a Turkish performance artist thanks to a special authorization. The man uses the plain text of this book combined with his own heritage as a way of satrically reflecting the era of the author.
<b>Moultano:</b>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Just to add another angle, no matter how twisted someone's opinion is, I'd still rather hear it. You identify or argue with something you can't name.
Every year in Cincinnati at Christmas time, the KKK puts a cross on fountain square. And every year people protest. I personally am glad they do. Aside from reaffirming the depth to which speech is a fundamental right, I want to be reminded that there are people in the world who still think like that. It doesn't do anyone any good pretending they don't exist. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm honestly a litte bewildered by that statement. As I already mentioned, the legislation we're discussing here did not hinder the German public from making the critical reflection of the Third Reich and Neonazism two of its main cultural subjects. The law against Volksverhetzung does (mostly) not apply in the neutral thematization of an issue, it only applies when a clear intention of hurting a groups dignity with the aim of inciting active rejection is evident.
<b>the johnjacob:</b>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->there is absolutely no reason to deny anyone's right to free speech, when it comes to speech, anyway.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok, then imagine this: You're member of a Turkish family that just recently immigrated. You opened a small store, pay your taxes, cheer for the German national soccer team, bow your heads towards Mecca every day, and try to be as helpful a citizen as you can be.
One night, loud voices wake you up. You look out of the window and see a group of, say, 30 skinheads waving burning Turkish (and intact swastica) flags, and singing songs that boil down to how all Turks are dirty pigs, how they deserve to die, and how Germany should rise up again to achieve just this. Imagine this going on on a daily basis for <i>weeks</i>.
In case someone is wondering, this is a summary of events that happene no twenty minutes from Chemnitz, where I lived for six years.
Believe me, words can hurt a person just as much as physical actions, and <i>I</i> can't see a reason why they shouldn't be prosecuted with the same consistency.
<span style='color:white'>I won't. Need any kind of ego-stroke I can get <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--></span>
In the extreme scenarios we're looking at in this discussion, it is usually possible to determine that a statement was aimed to deeply hurt a person in his or her dignity - the verbal attacks we're dealing with here are just too extreme to be done 'in good fun' or to be 'mumbled ignorantly'. While a clear measure isn't possible, I'd like to maintain that a rough caracterization of an insult <i>is</i> possible.
That doesn't mean that all speech is protected. The example of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater is the classical example of speech that is restricted. Yelling "Fire" would likely cause a panic where somebody could get hurt. Similarly, threatening language isn't protected. There's a difference between saying, "I hate Jews" and "I'm going to kill you." Free speech cases really need to be decided on a case-by-case basis.
Of course, a lack of formal sanctions doesn't mean that groups like the KKK and neonazi groups are welcomed with open arms in the U.S. Those groups are limited by informal sanctioning. Most Americans won't seek to punish them through governmental means, but they are isolated because they hold views outside of the norm. Labels are applied like, "racist" and "skinhead" as a way of showing society at large that such behavior is unacceptable. Having norms different from that of mainstream society makes them a deviant subculture.
I think it's a little different with slander and libel. I don't really know if it's possible to slander a group of people. The person who's doing the slander isn't lying about any one person and it's not possible for all of a group to press charges. For example, if a Klanner is going on about how Jews run the media, it's not really possible for all Jews to sue that person. If the Klanner was more specific, saying that a specific Jew ran the media, then I believe a lawsuit would be possible.
Historical sidebar: The history of slander and libel cases in America predates the Revolution. In 1735, a newspaper editor, John Peter Zenger, was indicted for seditious libel for printing antigovernment articles. However, what he had printed (A British governer was taking bribes) was true, and he was acquitted.
I disagree that words can hurt as much as physical violence. If I call somebody a **** once, I don't see that as constituting an assault on somebody's dignity. If I repeatedly taunt a person, that constitues harassment and the rules change. MonsE's example of him pushing you and everybody laughing isn't about the physical violence, but rather if the people who laugh are assaulting your dignity, should they be held accountable.
Thus, the repeated harassment of a person, for example in the form of mobbing at work, as well as the kind of public humiliation in MonsEs mud-example, <i>is</i> considered a (relatively minor) violation of the first Article here. One can be held accountable for such offenses, both in Germany and the US.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Part of the argument for free speech is that if you start restricting speech, you are in essence restricting thought. You might be able to think it, but without the ability to communicate that idea to others, it might as well not exist. Restricting some speech is seen as the start of a slippery slope where eventually all speech that doesn't agree with what the majority thinks becomes restricted.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, I'm familiar with the theory, but what if the thought that you're trying to defend is in fact aiming on drastically restricting everyones freedom of speech (and thus also freedom of thought) in an almost all-encompassing scale? The principle starts covering those who aim to destroy it, it bites its own tail.
The alternative I'm advocating here is allowing <i>any</i> kind of speech safe for those aspects which aim to strongly restrict freedom of speech themselves; this limitation is clearly cut enough to avoid the slippery slope effect, and at the same time sufficiently severe to avoid a support of clearly destructive elements.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Of course, a lack of formal sanctions doesn't mean that groups like the KKK and neonazi groups are welcomed with open arms in the U.S. Those groups are limited by informal sanctioning. Most Americans won't seek to punish them through governmental means, but they are isolated because they hold views outside of the norm. Labels are applied like, "racist" and "skinhead" as a way of showing society at large that such behavior is unacceptable. Having norms different from that of mainstream society makes them a deviant subculture.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Such societal resentments would be a nice form of restriction, if they were in any way reliable. There have been - and are - numerous occasions in your and my countries history in which such extremely authoritarian groups weren't (aren't) pressed in the role of a minority by popular sentiment. A defense of freedom of speech against those who aim to not only limit, but destroy it can thus not be solely based on 'society at large'.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I think it's a little different with slander and libel. I don't really know if it's possible to slander a group of people. The person who's doing the slander isn't lying about any one person and it's not possible for all of a group to press charges.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The case isn't so much about whether a group of people can be subject to slander or not. What I was referring to was a common practice amongst extremists of any kind to draw direct connections from a generalized statement (which can not be legally acted against) to a single person (who'll then be subject to the same disadvantages a victim of slander experiences).
To cite a historic example, during the crusades, people were incited against local Jews by stories about how 'The Jews' used the blood of Christian children to bake their easter breads. An obvious lie, of course, and not evidentely aimed against a single person, but it made people shun or even attack individual Jews. The schematic of 'All x are y - Get this special representative of x and punish him!' is a true and tried extremist propaganda tool.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I disagree that words can hurt as much as physical violence.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You've obviously not talked to victims of mobbing, then. Strong verbal abuse - possibly extended over a longer period - can lead to severe depressions that drive not too few victims into suicide. Words can kill.
I'm honestly a litte bewildered by that statement. As I already mentioned, the legislation we're discussing here did not hinder the German public from making the critical reflection of the Third Reich and Neonazism two of its main cultural subjects. The law against Volksverhetzung does (mostly) not apply in the neutral thematization of an issue, it only applies when a clear intention of hurting a groups dignity with the aim of inciting active rejection is evident.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
That still doesn't answer my point that if there are people with hateful views, I would rather hear them. Getting it 'from the horses mouth' is really the only way we have of determining whether racist view are still common, and similarly, what they arise from. It doesn't make much sense having neutral reflection on something if you don't have a good way of determining whether it still exists.
People have a right to know if hateful view still play a large role in society, and the best way to provide for that is to give the people with those views the right to talk about them publicly.
Really, in the current form of the case-by-case-trial-decision-, two year-process-system, it's impossible to keep extremism from making itself obvious .