Sledgehammer Censorship

Germany's censorship laws outdate the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the German government's continued attachment to bans on hate-speech, membership of neo-Nazi organizations, and Holocaust denial make a mockery of the fight for free speech.

While I recently used this blog as a platform to rave about the outrage of Muslim death-squads lining the streets, burning banners and terrorizing American consular workers for no reason besides a piddling video on YouTube, eyes were directed away from legislation that exists all across the enlightened world.

German mandates on censorship extend into constitutional decree. Baader-Meinhof or Nazi propaganda are both constitutionally outlawed, including any literature thereof, and likewise written or printed materials deemed to publicly express Volksverhetzung (Holocaust denial) are forbidden. Those refusing to tow the line face jail time.

Neo-Nazi German rock-band, Landser are forced to smuggle bootleg CDs from US printing houses and redirect traffic to their website through Canadian proxy servers.

Everywhere the laws are easily circumvented. Images akin to the swastika are banned, though far-right groups parade Nazi symbols all the same. The Reichskriegsflagge, images of sun crosses, and black crosses predate the swastika and are therefore legal.

Through their actions, Muslim's outraged by the depiction of the prophet Muhammad in the 'Innocence of Muslims' trailer, or by Charlie Hebdo's cartoon illustrated how not to advertise censorship. They gathered together under an umbrella of self-righteous umbrage and hoisted a giant sledgehammer above their heads.

Too bad they collapsed under its weight. We don't impose blanket bans on films when the content deserves certification. In the United States, and, for the main, in Britain we have a choice whether or not to watch a film, or whether to let our children watch a film, or indeed any other media for that matter, and we must fight for that choice.

When Germans force musicians out of their own country, forcibly disband political parties, and prosecute individuals for distributing leaflets, they are denying themselves that freedom. 

As Piers Morgan pressed Mahmoud Ahmedinejad on the topic of Holocaust denial for CNN, the grizzly Iranian theocrat said:

I pass no judgment about historic events. I say researchers and scholars must be free to conduct research and analysis about any historical events, and have contrary opinion, pro and con. Why should a researcher be put in jail, one question? Question number two. Let's assume your parameter is right, your question is right. Your assumption is that this event took place. Where did it take place? Who were the individuals responsible for this event? [...] The third question I have. If a historic event, if a historical event has indeed taken place, why so much sensitivity surrounding it by politicians?

His answers surrounding the Holocaust are shady and surreptitious to say the least, but on the point of free inquiry he cannot be ignored. Sensitivity is the wrong word; feelings of discomfort may account for vast ill-feeling toward neo-Nazi organizations in modern Germany, but they do not justify censorship.

In July last year Germany's federal intelligence bureau noted that while politically motivated crime has decreased over recent years, membership of neo-Nazi groups has increased, and so too has the potential for violence. Am I alone in arguing that these statistics correlate to the aging swamp of censorship from which they arise?

Germany's constitution wields a sledgehammer against free speech and it's high-time it were disarmed.