Talk:Censorship in the Federal Republic of Germany

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Censorship in the Federal Republic of Germany has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

[edit] Banning anything ...

Banning anything does not stop it's use. Trying to stop people from having private opinions is as bad as anything that happened in the 3rd Reich. The Swastika is a symbol. In modern times it represents the events 1933-45 but it is an ancient symbol of good and must not be tainted by paranoia and hysteria. So, it's used by the neo-nazis - big deal, they are a tiny minority who are unlikely ever to gain the slightest political power and if they wish to wrap themselves in nazi flags - who cares. As for the holocaust, the words "Arbeit macht Frei" are a whole lot more chilling than the sight of the swastika.

There is a large number of people - most of whom where not even born during the war - who have a vested interest in constant protest. and who profess outrage at this or that, purely to keep their names in the public eye (and presumably make a little money on the side). As an example, see the hysterical reaction to anything that David Irving says or writes and which inevitably focuses attention on his works (all of which I've read). The past is immutable, ignoring it, sanitizing it or banning it is dangerous.

Excerpt from Wikepedia = "On the other hand, millions of people of Indian origin live in the West, e.g. including over 2 million Indian-Americans in the United States, and Jain, Hindu and other Indian religions, festivals, marriages and ceremonies continue to use the swastika as their main religious and cultural symbol". Therefore banning one of their religious symbols is clearly racial prejudice ...

The message to Germany is - it all happened - deal with it and move on.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chastity99 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 7 June 2007

We don't judge politics in wikipedia. We only state the known facts. As far as I know no Hindu has complained that he could not have his swastika in Germany. There is only a ban on the swastika as a political symbol else it is quite evidently in use. Wandalstouring (talk) 14:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What does the National Democratic Party of Germany have to do with cencorship?

What does the attempted prohibition of the National Democratic Party of Germany have to do with censorship? The party was seen to be anti-constitutional as their main goal is to abolish the current state.

So, how does this relate to the article? What am I missing? I propose a removal.. --Johnnyw talk 12:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

"Censorship is defined as the removal and/or withholding of information from the public by a controlling group or body" - censorship

Because the party is illegal, distributing information promoting the group's membership and goals is also illegal. I think the link is quite clear from there. - Revolving Bugbear (formerly Che Nuevara) 15:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The party isn't illegal (it was an attempt at prohibiting the party). But I get your point. Nevertheless, the legal process was initiated not because of the right wing or fascist background of parts of the NPD, but their alleged intents to incite a violent revolt against the state. This was due to several assaults, a bombing incident etc. in the months prior. To cite a dossier of the German newspaper Die Welt that describes the main views of the Verfassungsschutz: "Dabei geht es um Belege für zwei Kernthesen. Erstens, dass die NPD in ,,aggressiv-kämpferischer Weise" gegen den Staat vorgeht. Und zweitens, dass die NPD in direkter Form Funktionäre und Mitglieder anweist, Straf- und Gewalttaten zu begehen." which translates to "It is about proof for two central hypothesis. First of all, that the NPD acts in 'an aggressive-militant way' against the state. And secondly, that the NPD directly instructs members and functionaries to commit acts of violence and crime." Johnnyw talk 21:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Er, yes, that was a dumb typo / oversight on my part ... I meant to say "If a party is illegal ..." You are, of course, correct that the party is not illegal.

However, whatever evidential theatrics were played out before the court, the movement (if not the actual legal arguments) to ban the NPD revolve around the claim that they are a National Socialist party. See the quote from Otto Schily, Minister of the Interior: "on the basis of recognizable circumstances, it is to be expected that National Socialist tyranny or despotic rule will be glorified or downplayed" (which is of course a crime pursuant to StgB S130). (Unfortunately, I don't have that source in Germany.) The objection to this party is related to the banning of National Socialism and thus related to its censorship.

If, however, you feel that it would be better outside the National Socialism section, giving it its own 3-level header would be alright with me. In any case, an attempt to ban a political platform is an attempt at censorship, whether or not it's tied to Nazism. - Revolving Bugbear (formerly Che Nuevara) 21:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)