From: Peter Herngaard <pethern@inet.uni2.dk>
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 10:56:54 +0800
To: Lizard <lizard@dnai.com>
Subject: Re: Hate speech in Germany...
In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19971205172926.03498058@dnai.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9712060200.A29329-0100000@inet.uni2.dk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain





On Fri, 5 Dec 1997, Lizard wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> At 02:09 AM 12/6/97 +0100, Peter Herngaard wrote:
> >Reply to Duncan Frissell:
> >
> >If the German people desired  to abolish the Radikalenerlass they 
> could  
> >do so simply by changing their goverment precisely as U.S. citizens 
> could 
> >abolish use of capital punishment against minors.
> >Is there any difference?
> 
> There is a difference, in that calling for the abolition of laws 
> banning 'hate speech' can easily be labelled as 'hate speech' in 
> themselves. 
I think it's true for banana republics.
However, as far I know itsn't illegal in Germany to call for the abolition
of all hate laws.
But calling for the abolition of human rights is certainly against the law.
Changing or amending the Basic Law is not impossible.
The distinction is very narrow since those
who call for abolition of the hate laws, at least in Germany, at the same 
time
advocate expulsion of non-whites or the establishment of a dictatorship.

 >

> Further, since it is never popular speech which needs 
> government protection, the odds are good that the majority of those 
> who would call for the abolition of such laws are those who wished to 
> engage in such speech -- and thus, by calling attention to 
> themselves, they could risk jail.
Yes. But taken another European country such as Denmark
this is not illegal.
In fact, I and surely other free speech advocates would prefer abolition
of the criminal statute against hate speech.
> 
> The reason such laws do not exist in the US is NOT because 'the 
> people' do not want them -- I daresay a popular vote would install 
> them in a heartbeat -- but because the government is NOT a democracy, 
> and the 'will of the people' runs up against the Bill of Rights, 
> which serves to protect people from the government, and from each 
> other.
Yes. But if the majority of the voting population *really* wanted
to install a hate speech censorship regime, they coould elect
a House and a Senate being able
to change or amend the Bill of Rights.
It seems that criminalization of "flag desecration" 
to many is what hate speech is in Europe.

> While I'm sure there are at least some ideaological free speech 
> absolutists in Germany, I'm betting they're a smaller group than they 
> are even in the US -- Germany has no real history of free speech, 
> compared to the US, and Europe in general has a history of placing 
> the collective good ahead of individual liberty. 
I agree, and I am more in favour of the First Amendment than the European 
Convention of the Protection of Human Rights.
As I pointed out in another thread the European approach to freedom of 
speech is
majoritarian not libetarian.
The backtracker nations are France and Ireland who  have no excuse for 
censorship neither of hate speech nor pornography.
I do not know much about German free speech activists.
But I  subscribe to the view that there are less free speech absolutists 
there
than in the U.S.
But to be fair to Germany, they do not censor pornography as heavily as 
Ireland where X-rated 
movies are illegal along with blasphemous and seditious libel.
France, the country of "liberty, equality and brotherhood" is in fact 
more censorious than Germany in regard to imported publications.
For example, the Interior Minister can order the seisure of any "foreign" 
publication, without a prior court order, if it is in the national interest.
This censorship law is very old but is still used.
Scandinavia and Netherlands are the most liberal countries in Europe both 
in regard
to hate speech and pornography.
For instance, Denmark allows the Rudolf Hess march and the broadcasting 
of Mein Kampf on local radio
that woould not be allowed in other European countries.
Denmark is also a haven for distribution of NSDAP/ao literature to 
Germany, Great Britain and the rest of the world.
I suppose the White Power enthuasiast can get everything he/she desires 
in Denmark without having to order it by mail from Hilsboro West Virginia 
(The National Unemployance) or Lincoln Nebraska (Gary Lauck's NSDAP/ao).
Fortunately I am not a White Power enthusiast-)
But I know from reliable sources tht The International Jew by Henry Ford,
The Turner Diaries by William L. Pierce and WHITE POWER by George Lincoln 
Rockwell all are fairly legal, though not widely available, to every 
racist loser.
In addition, we do not prohibit pornography, and obscenity is a 
non-existent legal category.
Although I can live without hardcore pornography and White Power, I don't 
think my country is much oppressive compared to funny France and Ireland.



 > While a US 'leftist' 
> will, for the most part, cede the right of even his enemies to speak 
> (this is changing lately, but it used to be true, and there's still a 
> few old lefties about), my exposure to German and other European 
 > leftists indicates that they approve strongly of laws banning 
> 'racist' or 'hateful' speech -- while the American left has its roots 
> in the anarchists of the 19th century, the European left has grown 
> from the totalitarians of the 20th century.
This is entirely true.
However, there are few left-wingers in Europe who oppose censorship,
including myself, who oppope any censorship even of hate speech and 
tobaco advertising.
However, also the traditional right-wing "liberals" 
and "conservatives" 
endorse strict censorship of hate speech.
The reason why I do not support any anti-racst organization, except 
Nizkor, is that most such "human rights" advocacy groups in Europe are in 
favour of censorship.
In Denmark, The People's Movement against Nazism (Folkebevaegelsen mod 
Nazisme) is represented by amongst others people who 
honour Joseph Stalin and who support censorship
of any even peaceful advocacy of racial superiority.
Ironically, they justify their demand for censorship with the Convention 
of The Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
and The Convention on Civil and Political Rights. 
The United Nations is a threat to freedom of speech in particular in Europe
where we have no gaurantee of freedom of speech with similar strength as 
that the First Amendment provides.
It was shocking to observe that states such as China, Nigeria, Pakistan  
can influence freedom of speech
from within the U.N. under
cover of "elimination of all forms of racial discrimination."