SakashiroHowever, if you compare Trump to Hitler, or some member of the opposition party, you walk away scot-free.

Sakashiro

Rebecca HailAnd no, there's no way to convince me with anecdotal evidence. If you want to convince me bring either some expert opinions or show me a peer reviewed study that comes to the clear conclusion: "Germanys poltical censorship acts in favour of the current government.".

Are there any experts or peer-reviewed studies that conclude the opposite?

If not, what makes your claim more valid than mine? I may only have anecdotal evidence, but you don't even have that. You have literally nothing. Not a single acquittal that supports your claim.

a) § 86 a StGB, der das Verwenden von Kennzeichen verfassungswidriger Organisationen unter Strafe stellt, ist ein allgemeines Gesetz im Sinne von Art. 5 Abs. 2 GG (vgl. BVerfGE 111, 147 <155>). Darunter sind alle Gesetze zu verstehen, die sich nicht gegen die Meinungsfreiheit an sich oder gegen die Äußerung einer bestimmten Meinung richten, die vielmehr dem Schutz eines schlechthin, ohne Rücksicht auf eine bestimmte Meinung zu schützenden Rechtsguts dienen. Dieses Rechtsgut muss in der Rechtsordnung allgemein und damit unabhängig davon geschützt sein, ob es durch Meinungsäußerungen oder auf andere Weise verletzt werden kann. Soweit die entsprechenden Rechtsnormen auslegungsbedürftig sind, darf die Auslegung nicht zur Außerachtlassung des Schutzgehalts von Art. 5 Abs. 1 GG führen (vgl. BVerfGE 111, 147 <155>; stRspr).

The Court first acknowledged that Mr Nix’s conviction for having displayed a picture of Himmler with a swastika armband in his blog post amounted to an interference with his right to freedom of expression. Then, it went on to analyse whether this interference was prescribed by law, in pursuit of a legitimate aim, and necessary in a democratic society. On the first two parts of this test, the Court noted that Mr. Nix’s conviction had a legal basis (Article 86a of the Criminal Code) and that it pursued the legitimate aim of the prevention of disorder. It noted that the relevant law that was imposed was aimed at preventing the revival of prohibited organizations or the unconstitutional ideas pursued by them, the maintenance of political peace, and the banning of symbols of unconstitutional organizations in German political life.

As for whether the interference was “necessary in a democratic society”, the Court pointed out that it had always been very sensitive to the historical context of Member States when reviewing whether there exists a pressing social need for an interference with rights under the Convention. The Court went on to say that, “[i]n the light of their historical role and experience, States which have experienced the Nazi horrors may be regarded as having a special moral responsibility to distance themselves from the mass atrocities perpetrated by the Nazis”. [para. 47] Furthermore, it considered that the “legislature’s choice to criminally sanction the use of Nazi symbols, to ban the use of such symbols from German political life, to maintain political peace (also taking into account the perception of foreign observers), and to prevent the revival of Nazism must be seen against this background.” [para. 47]

The Court noted that, under German law, no criminal liability arose where the use of symbols of unconstitutional organisations was meant to serve civil education, to combat unconstitutional movements, to promote art or science, research or teaching, to report on current or historical events, or serve similar purposes. Moreover, the Court observed that the German Courts restricted the scope of these exceptions to uses that did not contravene the provision’s purpose, including where it was obvious and clear that the person using the symbol is opposed to the ideology behind it. The Court considered that “exemption from criminal liability where opposition to the ideology embodied by the used symbol is ‘obvious and clear’ constitutes an important safeguard for the right to freedom of expression.” [para. 48]

[...]

The Court concluded by reiterating that the historical experience of Germany was a weighty factor to be taken into account when considering cases involving Nazi symbols, and whether there exists a pressing social need for interfering with an individual’s right to freedom of expression in this context. The Court concluded that the domestic courts had adduced relevant and sufficient reasons and did not overstep their margin of appreciation in the present case. Therefore, the interference was found to be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and “necessary in a democratic society”.

And no, freedom of the press is not the same thing as freedom of expression.

Of course German media could report about the Merkel+swastika posters from Greece, Turkey, and elsewhere.  According to the courts, none of the law's exception clauses applied.

But no one in Germany could use the very same images during a protest in solidarity with Greece. Those who tried were convicted, although there was a clear connection to the Greek anti-austerity protests, and no connection to right-wing ideologies.

However, if you compare Trump to Hitler, or some member of the opposition party, you walk away scot-free.

Amata LireinThe one flaw with this argument: Gauland defended anti-semitic rhetoric inside his very own party, Trump made racists comments over and over again during his term in office (especially against Mexicans and Muslims). These gave the press (and would give an ordinary citizen) here in Germany enough basis to create a satirical portrayal of both without having to fear being charged and/or convicted of §86a as contemporary events back you up as the comparison may be extreme but not without comprehesive evidence.

Die einzige gute und vernünftige Rede zum 70. Jahrestag der Gründung Israels war – so leid es mir tut – jene von Alexander Gauland. Ich fand es sehr peinlich, dass sich anschließend zum Beifall keine Hand rührte, bloß weil er AfD-Fraktionschef ist. Das sind keine guten demokratischen Umgangsformen.

Synthya WylderThat may explain the 'pass' on Hitler-Trump comparisons (which I think are entirely unfounded).

Effie TrinketIs there a way to block things in here?

Amata LireinI think I'm going to no longer comment on this topic myself as it has derailed from a discussion of "is there political censorship in favour of the government in Germany" (which I think Rebecca and I have proven quite well that there is not with a lot of examples as well as explaining the German laws that are at play here) to outright bashing Germany by Sakashiro for reasons I can even partly understand (as she said that she's got a Taiwanese husband) but that are totally ignoring extremely difficult diplomatic issues. Both China/Taiwan and Israel/Palestine (with that issue also including the status of Jerusalem) are very delicate diplomatic landmines that need to be handled with care if you ever want to achieve a permanent solution to them, and that may include preserving the status quo for now to prevent things from turning sour even more.

And that shall be my last word on this.

Effie TrinketIs there a way to block things in here?

Rebecca Hail

Effie TrinketIs there a way to block things in here?

Sorry for annoying you Effie

Aleksander MajjamI thought she was blocking me.

I was confused because I recently showered.

SakashiroBack to our regularly scheduled programming...