I do believe you will say it endlessly, as you're clearly in denial about what's happening (lemme guess, are you German?).
Germany is months away from outright banning the AfD, the primary opposition party that has hundreds of MPs, on the basis that the SED um I mean the SPD hates their policies. That's what punishment of dissent looks like, what a regime looks like: bulk disenfranchising a quarter of the population because they object to left wing policy.
If they get those judges appointed it'll likely be lights out for German democracy. All the AfD MPs will disappear overnight, leaving the left wing parties with a majority. They will then launch a vote of no confidence in Merz and take over the government, at which point the already extremely harsh oppression of the left's enemies will be ramped up much further still. The right will be fully driven underground by many more prosecutions of the form you claim aren't about punishing dissent, and Germany will be fully converted to the DDR model in which there are theoretically competitive elections, but the only parties allowed to exist are all on the left.
I really hope you're not German, that you're just very stubborn instead. Because if Germany does get turned into a left wing dictatorship there's no limit to how crazy and dysfunctional life there will become. The USA will be paradise in comparison.
Am I understanding you correctly here - your idea of free speech is that people should be able to wear/use Nazi symbols proudly? That's what you mean when you say there's no free speech in Europe?
Both of those men used the Nazi symbol as a warning: "this policy seems bad in a totalitarian way, like what those very bad people did in the 1930s, so we shouldn't be doing that". They didn't wear these symbols, nor present them as a representation of their own beliefs, nor glorify them in any way. They used them as a compact representation of where they feared the slippery slope can lead.
Discussing history, learning from it and avoiding a repeat of it is a foundational justification for political speech. If Germans cannot point to their own past to warn about the present - and under the current German government they clearly can't because people who do keep getting prosecuted - then they cannot learn from it and might well repeat it.
All of this is obvious. The last two paragraphs were already very clear in my previous post. There was no way to interpret them the way you did, so I don't believe you are arguing in good faith. At his trial, CJ Hopkins pointed out that mainstream German media routinely printed the swastika on their front page in relation to the AfD, yet they weren't prosecuted under the same legal theory he was being prosecuted under. The symbols aren't really banned. The judgement, when finally read out, didn't make any mention of the defense arguments at all. It was a show trial and everyone knew it, including independent journalists:
They did that knowing that Nazi symbols were banned in Germany. They did it on purpose to get in trouble with the law in order to conflate the two things: 1) using Nazi symbols, 2) criticizing government policy.
it's a classic motte and bailey approach, and I'm sure they're grateful to you for defending their demagoguery.
He wasn’t fined for criticizing policy.
I’ll say this as many times as needed, no matter how many words you type in.
Germany doesn’t punish dissent. (Unlike the current US regime BTW)
I do believe you will say it endlessly, as you're clearly in denial about what's happening (lemme guess, are you German?).
Germany is months away from outright banning the AfD, the primary opposition party that has hundreds of MPs, on the basis that the SED um I mean the SPD hates their policies. That's what punishment of dissent looks like, what a regime looks like: bulk disenfranchising a quarter of the population because they object to left wing policy.
If they get those judges appointed it'll likely be lights out for German democracy. All the AfD MPs will disappear overnight, leaving the left wing parties with a majority. They will then launch a vote of no confidence in Merz and take over the government, at which point the already extremely harsh oppression of the left's enemies will be ramped up much further still. The right will be fully driven underground by many more prosecutions of the form you claim aren't about punishing dissent, and Germany will be fully converted to the DDR model in which there are theoretically competitive elections, but the only parties allowed to exist are all on the left.
I really hope you're not German, that you're just very stubborn instead. Because if Germany does get turned into a left wing dictatorship there's no limit to how crazy and dysfunctional life there will become. The USA will be paradise in comparison.
Am I understanding you correctly here - your idea of free speech is that people should be able to wear/use Nazi symbols proudly? That's what you mean when you say there's no free speech in Europe?
No you aren't understanding correctly, at all.
Both of those men used the Nazi symbol as a warning: "this policy seems bad in a totalitarian way, like what those very bad people did in the 1930s, so we shouldn't be doing that". They didn't wear these symbols, nor present them as a representation of their own beliefs, nor glorify them in any way. They used them as a compact representation of where they feared the slippery slope can lead.
Discussing history, learning from it and avoiding a repeat of it is a foundational justification for political speech. If Germans cannot point to their own past to warn about the present - and under the current German government they clearly can't because people who do keep getting prosecuted - then they cannot learn from it and might well repeat it.
All of this is obvious. The last two paragraphs were already very clear in my previous post. There was no way to interpret them the way you did, so I don't believe you are arguing in good faith. At his trial, CJ Hopkins pointed out that mainstream German media routinely printed the swastika on their front page in relation to the AfD, yet they weren't prosecuted under the same legal theory he was being prosecuted under. The symbols aren't really banned. The judgement, when finally read out, didn't make any mention of the defense arguments at all. It was a show trial and everyone knew it, including independent journalists:
https://www.velazquez.press/p/scandalous-verdict-us-author-c...
They did that knowing that Nazi symbols were banned in Germany. They did it on purpose to get in trouble with the law in order to conflate the two things: 1) using Nazi symbols, 2) criticizing government policy.
it's a classic motte and bailey approach, and I'm sure they're grateful to you for defending their demagoguery.
2 replies →