I don't want to make a value judgement by using a word like "behind", but I do think most Americans are simply not aware of how extreme our country's stance on free speech is compared to the rest of the world. Countries like the UK, France, and Germany seem to function just fine with their more restrictive laws on speech.
There were a lot of hate-speech laws when Hitler came to power. He even used the fact he was prevented from speaking publicly as propaganda. And yes, a lot of legislation of Weimar to censor spoken and written word has been extended by the Nazis after they came to power.
People arguing for more moderation and more censorship generally lack perspective when they refer to fascism in the same breath. Free speech is a most effective disinfectant against fascism.
And yes, he was banned from speaking due to hate speech laws.
I really know that. I live in Germany and have been briefed extensively. Our last emperor was the first to introduce legislation against hate-speech. But that was in the 19th century. Of course you do not find references to laws from the Weimar Republic and before in modern legislation.
Cite the laws, cite the history of the dates implemented. Civil remedies did not exist.
I have provided you with actual legally traceable citations to law and their implementations. You cited a propaganda poster.
You are conflating a regime of arbitrary censorship with specific and nuanced legislation that was implemented as a direct result of Nazism. To argue that the basis of Germany's contemporary hate speech laws, including the most recent legislation regarding social media, is not a direct result of Germany's experience with Nazism is delusional.
> there was no equivalent of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act in the Weimar Germany. The only laws against hate speech were criminal offences, not civil remedies. Weimar Germany had nothing equivalent to the framework which currently exists under the Racial Discrimination Act within which complaints of racial vilification have, in the vast majority of cases, been successfully conciliated through the Australian Human Rights Commission or resolved by direct negotiations between the parties.
> In Weimar Germany, the absence of civil remedies was made worse by the fact that the relevant criminal offences were honeycombed with immunities for members of the Reichstag, the German Parliament. Nazi members of Parliament became the nominal publishers of single or multiple antisemitic publications. This facade meant that no one could be prosecuted for the hate crimes perpetrated by the publications. The Reichstag could waive immunity for its members, but did so rarely.
§ 130 StGB lautete in der Urfassung des Strafgesetzbuchs von 1871:
„Wer in einer den öffentlichen Frieden gefährdenden Weise verschiedene Klassen der Bevölkerung zu Gewalttätigkeiten gegen einander öffentlich anreizt, wird mit Geldstrafe bis zu zweihundert Thalern oder mit Gefängniß bis zu zwei Jahren bestraft.“
The article you linked even explained that Nazis were prosecuted. That some of them had parliamentary immunity is another topic. Distinction of criminal and civil law is also secondary.
1960 a second paragraph was added the said that human dignity is indisputable. It was a reaction to anti-semitic attacks.
But it is pretty factual that Germany had hate-speech laws before the Nazis came to power.
> including the most recent legislation regarding social media
most legal experts think this law is not constitutional and it was responsible for banning satire on the first day of its inception. Future rulings will decide its fate. Not giving you a quote on that, let's just wait.
Section 130 was introduced in 1946 with the new legislation. Beyond that, you missed the part where they discuss the lack of civil recourse / remedies for hate speech prior to the war.
> most legal experts think this law is not constitutional and it was responsible for banning satire on the first day of its inception. Future rulings will decide its fate. Not giving you a quote on that, let's just wait.
Let's skip your "most" and at least agree that the issue is finding the fuzzy line between proper discourse and hate?
Whether you agree or not, the existing edicts in Weimar Germany were ineffective and neutered, in addition to being undermined / ignored by the ruling party, which essentially calls into question of the status of the rules being "laws" at all. The laws changed quite drastically after the war, so much so that the new legal construct was entirely different, including civil remedies.
Look to Germany. I said "behind" because it requires a certain national hubris to not acknowledge the horrific turn of events that came out of a country, and in turn, acknowledge what they have learned from it.
So you are suggesting that a country that birthed one of the worst fascist regimes, and that implemented strong hate speech laws after such, is behind the USA?
Yes, I'm stating that Germany is behind the USA when it comes to protecting individual freedoms. Censorship and hate speech are an affront to individual liberty and freedom. In fact if you want, I'll say they're not only behind but driving in the wrong direction.
They were NOT just implemented after the fascist regime. They were already in place. Ironically these laws were used against Hitler to prevent him from speaking publicly and he was very proficient to use the fact he was barred to speak freely.
"Einer allein von 2000 Million Menschen der Erde darf in Deutschland nicht reden" => "He alone from 2000 million humans on earth isn't allowed to speak in Germany." - propaganda of the NS.
We had hate speech laws since we had an emperor. Freedom of opinion is one of the most fundamental rights in modern Germany.
Have you researched the history of section 130 and 131? It doesn't appear you have any awareness as to the history of the laws, nor what constitutes a "hate" law. Basis for 130 131 laid in 1946.
> On May 23, 1949, the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany was promulgated to serve as the cornerstone of a democratic state designed to protect individual liberty. Accordingly, the Grundgesetz, or Basic Law, is patterned upon the tradition of Western constitutionalism and is a direct historical reaction to the disastrous Weimar Republic and Third Reich." The Basic Law regulates two types of rights and relations. The first type, the Basic Laws, pertain to the rights of individuals and the state. The Basic Laws are characterized by many of the classic human rights found in the U.S. Bill of Rights. The second type, the Rights to a Free Democratic Order, concern the rights of governmental organs, the organization of the state, and the relationships between the various state organs.
