That’s not the point tho. In Germany, to prevent another dictatorship, there are laws that forbid going against the constitution, which also guarantees free speech and the right to a personal opinion (Art 5). This medium is constantly publishing unconstitutianal propaganda and sometimes even trying to incite coups that would lead to abolishment of the constitution. So they are actually attacking free speech among other freedoms, like equality and religious freedom.
The Bundesverwaltungsgericht says no. And constitutional scholars state that one has to endure uncomfortable and ugly opinions (Freiheit Tag und Nacht aushalten, goes the saying, I heard.)
It is stated that hate speech and anti-constitutional tendencies are protected under free speech as long as they are not personal insults or Incitement to ethnic or racial hatred. The Bundesverwaltungsgericht came to the verdict, that compact didn’t do that, I guess?
My last data point stems from a comment by Tilmann Steffen in die Zeit about the begin and the goals of the trial.
To be clear, I’m worried about the current up-rise of right wing parties and groups in Europe (and about the success of the politians who make these extremist statements their own, to gain influence). But I wouldn’t want to ignore constitutional rights to protect the constitution.
Germany has a history of forbidding extremism on both sides, justify it with the “never again” of our Nazi past, then apply the laws mainly on the left
Yes. The blind in the right eye symptom seems to be real. Sadly.
It doesn’t change anything about the compact verdict from my point of view. But this injustice feels unfair and people do not feel represented and protected by the state (with the known consequences). The state has the Gewaltmonopol (monopoly on the use of force). For me this implies, that the state has the duty to nvoke its rights equally, regardless of the side.
That’s not the point tho. In Germany, to prevent another dictatorship, there are laws that forbid going against the constitution, which also guarantees free speech and the right to a personal opinion (Art 5). This medium is constantly publishing unconstitutianal propaganda and sometimes even trying to incite coups that would lead to abolishment of the constitution. So they are actually attacking free speech among other freedoms, like equality and religious freedom.
The Bundesverwaltungsgericht says no. And constitutional scholars state that one has to endure uncomfortable and ugly opinions (Freiheit Tag und Nacht aushalten, goes the saying, I heard.)
It is stated that hate speech and anti-constitutional tendencies are protected under free speech as long as they are not personal insults or Incitement to ethnic or racial hatred. The Bundesverwaltungsgericht came to the verdict, that compact didn’t do that, I guess? My last data point stems from a comment by Tilmann Steffen in die Zeit about the begin and the goals of the trial.
To be clear, I’m worried about the current up-rise of right wing parties and groups in Europe (and about the success of the politians who make these extremist statements their own, to gain influence). But I wouldn’t want to ignore constitutional rights to protect the constitution.
Germany has a history of forbidding extremism on both sides, justify it with the “never again” of our Nazi past, then apply the laws mainly on the left
Yes. The blind in the right eye symptom seems to be real. Sadly.
It doesn’t change anything about the compact verdict from my point of view. But this injustice feels unfair and people do not feel represented and protected by the state (with the known consequences). The state has the Gewaltmonopol (monopoly on the use of force). For me this implies, that the state has the duty to nvoke its rights equally, regardless of the side.