Hacker News Reader

Comment by Dirlewanger | Hacker News Reader

>the ban was an “illegitimate act of censorship” and an “arbitrary limitation of freedom of expression and freedom of the press.”

Being a filthy ignorant American, all I know about Germany regarding freedom of X is that they do have hard limits on anything related to Nazism. So how "arbitrary" is this really, especially when there's a precedent for a limit on freedom of speech? Does she even have an argument?

View on HN

Relevant law is ECHR article 10 qv https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/incorporated-rights/articles-i...

And the German constitution: http://www.dw.com/en/trial-highlights-limits-of-free-speech-...

So in both cases there is a recognition of "necessary" restrictions, leading to the question of how necessary it really is.

The US approach to protest restriction is different: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/08/donald-trump-a...

And of course you can't threaten the police in the US either https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/18/facebook-com...

Of note: that quote's from a spokesperson for Die Linke, which is the direct descendent of the party (the SED) that governed Soviet-occupied east Germany between 1949 and 1990. Which was hardly well known for its high levels of freedom, of expression or otherwise

Look, no party in the east was known for being a paragon of free experience or anything free. Our chancellor was member of a political party that served as a fig leaf for the GDR government. Most parties in the west trace their lineage back to parties that elected the NSDAP in power in the can hope of keeping Hitler in check. The CDU notably elected and supported judges in their ranks that signed death warrants in the final days of the war (Filbinger et. al.) It's 27 years now that the GDR ceased to exist, history has been messy and there's a lot of idiots in the ranks of Die Linke, I get it (1), but it's slowly about time to judge their statements based on their political ideas and their actions where they are in power instead of their precursors. Just slapping down a statement because it's from a politician from their side doesn't really cut it any more.

(1) as much as there are in other parties ranks more or less.

> Most parties in the west trace their lineage back to parties that elected the NSDAP in power in the can hope of keeping Hitler in check.

No other parties "elected the NSDAP into power", the President Hindenburg appointed Hitler as chancellor. Who then went on to illegalize all other parties.

While Hindenburg appointed Hitler as chancellor, only a minority of Hitler's cabinet were actually members of the NSDAP, others were without party affiliation (like the previous chancellor Franz von Papen) or members of the DNVP (German National People's Party) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_Cabinet

The usual explanation is that they wanted to "tame" Hitler, but in effect they only served to help him consolidate his power.

EDIT: Regarding the lineage of current German parties: neither Zentrum (ancestor of the CDU) nor SPD had any part in the deal that brought Hitler to power; the other major parties were only founded later.

You're certainly right that the greens were founded later, but the liberals existed as a party at the times of Hitlers rise to power. There were no other major parties in Western Germany.

However, we both might want to reread our history books a bit. One crucial step in the Nazi coup was the Enabling Act of 1933 which gave the NSDAP or rather Hitlers Cabinet - despite not having a majority in the parliament - the right to pass laws. The communists had been suppressed before and could not vote and I remembered that the SPD abstained. That's where I'm wrong - they voted against, at least those present. Some were not present at the vote. The rest of the parliament, including the Zentrum and the Liberals (which had 5 seats) voted in favor, granting the required 2/3 majority. Many Zentrum members, including the head of the party at that time were strict nationalist. Other members voted under duress. So yes, the Zentrum had a part in the dealing that brought Hitler to power. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933 and https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erm%C3%A4chtigungsgesetz_vom_2...

There's a fairly interesting list of Ex-NSDAP members that after the war joined other parties. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_ehemaliger_NSDAP-Mitglie... (among them Filbinger, and, notably, Hans Furler, President of the European Parliament and Genscher, the Exterior Minister at the time of the Reuinion)

If you read your history book, you may also remember that that vote was by no means an actual vote. Opposing parties were threatened and the parliament was filled with stormtrooper thugs. Using that vote to deduce any kind of acceptance of the violent new ruler is just absurd.

Read up on the Enabling Act of 1933. Hitler was appointed chancellor, but had no majority in the parliament. Illegalizing other parties happened mostly after all other parties except the SPD and the Communists voted to pass the act.

They were forced to vote on that, and then illegalized afterwards. It's just ludicrous to use that as a political statement.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com