"Even Hitler during WWII arguably had good intentions"

[Anny Nym]

@Palimpsest and @2xx1xy1JD, you are both right. 88 for the 8th letter in the alphabet = HH, 14 for the 14 words (which is more of a english-based thing although) and 18 for 1st and 8th letter of the alphabet = AH (like in "Adolf Hitler").

I didn´t know of the "lucky number"!

Thanks, @Palimpsest for posting the english Spiegel article, that´s a very good one.

[Palimpsest]

Ui Burris, there you gave me some exercise :lol: Okay, let´s see if I get it all together in the most honest way, because that is a sensible topic nonetheless (and I have to put the Nymlings in bed soon, so this is going to be a short-ish post - for now. Also I had a quite exciting day, so my english may derail a bit and I tend to go off-topic when I´m tired, so excuse that beforehand please ^^)

And it isn´t really, because one would have to censor the whole internet Kim-Jong-Un style to make it workable.

Against the dumb ones, yes. Against others? No. And never was.

The biggest change in recent times was probably the "Beweisthemenverbot" I THINK the correct english translation is "prohibition of admissible evidence/admissible evidence prohibition "? I am not sure.) in the 1990s. That seems to be somehow tied to David Irving and his attempted visit to Austria around this time. (mind you, I´m born 86´, alot of this things happened before I was able to actively notice anything going on regarding this issue).

In the 1950s happened alot of changes too: Austria was occupied until 1955 and parted in 4 different zones: russian, american, english, french. Every zone handled "denazification" differently. So like the collective punishment was at one point revoked in the russian zone (I don´t know the accurate year, prob. end-40s/1950), where for instance my family lived: Before, my paternal grandpa wasn´t allowed to finish high-school and was forced to work at a Usia instead, because he was at a napola. Afterwards he then could officially.

What else, 1950 death penalty was abolished, the occupational ban for certain fields must have been long in use, until the early 1960s as far as I understand it.

The rest, especially regarding suggestions for further readings in english, I have to recherche that a bit too - but I will, promised!

Many thanks, Anny. It was me that made you work hard, not Burris. That was very helpful.

Your English is very understandable even when you have had a busy day and are tired.

I'll take a look at Beweisthemenverbot and the Irving connection in the 1990s. Any other information would be welcome when you have time.

[Burris]

Ui Burris, there you gave me some exercise :lol: Okay, let´s see if I get it all together in the most honest way, because that is a sensible topic nonetheless (and I have to put the Nymlings in bed soon, so this is going to be a short-ish post - for now. Also I had a quite exciting day, so my english may derail a bit and I tend to go off-topic when I´m tired, so excuse that beforehand please ^^)

Your English is quite good, especially since I assume you're not immersed in it daily. (I'd taken English classes since I entered school, and then when I moved to Canada around 18-19 years ago, I took a 4-year degree in English as well; I love the language...poetic, elastic, accessible. It's a perfect language for global commerce. My mother, on the other hand - she's a hard worker who is continually employed, but always at clerk jobs because she won't or can't put in the effort to communicate in English more effectively - so she ends up taking me places where she needs help to understand what is going on.)

You? No - your English is great! There are a few older people in the community who have been here much longer than me and still don't have it down well enough to make it through a doctor's visit. (But my grandmother, who married and patriated to Canada in the late 80s, speaks better English than my mom does.)

And it isn´t really, because one would have to censor the whole internet Kim-Jong-Un style to make it workable.

Free speech is a necessary part of any society that hopes to maintain open and honest dialogue - and it's a corrective against racial invective and lies.

Extremes in censorship, such as government control over media, allow for all manner of horrible nonsense to be passed off as "news" - and it still happens...in China...in Republika Srpska...in North Korea...

...and apparently, to some extent, for reasons that make no sense to me, in Austria. (I'm not truly comparing Austria to China in terms of censorship. I am saying, however, that censorship of any sort makes trouble - more trouble than good - wherever one finds it.)

In those very rare cases when speech must be silenced, such as when the speaker is counselling sedition or murder, it may be an overall good for society that he no longer has a platform - but there is a cost, even in silencing a voice as destructive as that; society will pay, and people should know when they're paying, what they're paying, and why they're paying in terms of what freedoms they're prepared to compromise.

An effort to silence Neo-Nazis by stalling debate about legitimate historical topics is counter-productive, and honestly I see no upside to it at all.

Against the dumb ones, yes. Against others? No. And never was.

And - this is not meant as an argument against your points, but merely as an observation - that is one of the biggest problems with clumsy attempts to censor hate speech. The hard-core haters will simply route around it - and worse, they'd do their dirty work in the dark.

When these people are free to speak their minds in public venues, others can then uncover their lies.

When they work in shadow, there is no corrective. They simply creep around and corrode everything they touch. And because they are censored, they can pretend to having access to some powerful truth denied to the masses; they prey on the weak and the ignorant. The stronger ones know those lies for what they are, but seek after power or "purity" or land or supremacy for reasons of their own.

The biggest change in recent times was probably the "Beweisthemenverbot" I THINK the correct english translation is "prohibition of admissible evidence/admissible evidence prohibition "? I am not sure.) in the 1990s. That seems to be somehow tied to David Irving and his attempted visit to Austria around this time. (mind you, I´m born 86´, alot of this things happened before I was able to actively notice anything going on regarding this issue).

In the 1950s happened alot of changes too: Austria was occupied until 1955 and parted in 4 different zones: russian, american, english, french. Every zone handled "denazification" differently. So like the collective punishment was at one point revoked in the russian zone (I don´t know the accurate year, prob. end-40s/1950), where for instance my family lived: Before, my paternal grandpa wasn´t allowed to finish high-school and was forced to work at a Usia instead, because he was at a napola. Afterwards he then could officially.

What else, 1950 death penalty was abolished, the occupational ban for certain fields must have been long in use, until the early 1960s as far as I understand it.

The rest, especially regarding suggestions for further readings in english, I have to recherche that a bit too - but I will, promised!

Please do, if you have the time. This is when things get not only interesting but useful.

[Burris]

I totally agree with the bolded.

Not to derail this thread, but I spy an interesting rabbit hole. As I always understood it, Verbotsgesetz was enacted post-WWII as a de-nazification measure and has also been used against Holocaust denial. In the 2015 internet communication era, however, it doesn't seem workable. Nor do I see it as a viable law really because it just seems to push the problem underground.

I understand that the law has been ratified and updated in Austria since. Why - as in under what circumstances was it updated? How does it work in practice? Is it really effective against neo-Nazi groups?

Anny, any other comments or suggestions for further reading? Thanks.

As do I, regarding the bolded.

As for the coded language, I believe Austria is making a well-intentioned mistake - and this mistake is potentially a bad one.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Thanks for the reply, you learn something new every day.

I appreciate the intent behind deNazificiation efforts. Overall, I think that the fact that Germany and Austria are functional democracies that work reasonably well within the EU and took serious steps to confront the history of the Nazi era instead of minimizing or denying it is really important.

I know that free speech has been somewhat limited as a result. I can appreciate that the task was bigger and the stakes seemed higher than dealing with hate speech in the United States, since Germany and Austria needed to actively change political opinions quickly and couldn't really just sit back and watch the marketplace of ideas. OTOH, there's a price for limiting free speech, and I agree that banning numbers just gets absurd.

[Anny Nym]

I understand that the law has been ratified and updated in Austria since. Why - as in under what circumstances was it updated? How does it work in practice? Is it really effective against neo-Nazi groups?

Anny, any other comments or suggestions for further reading? Thanks.

Hy guys, I´m back to pick up where we left the discussion and I found some links for further reading (with a big emphasis on the some, because I coudn´t find as much as I hoped to) - I wanted to post it yesterday, but couldn´t make the necessary time to put it accurately together :embarrassed:

@Palimpsest, how does it work in practise? Well, so basically there are 2 parts:

a) don´t make anything accessible to be seen in public, regarding the NS-time.

So let´s say Someone sprays a Swastika - graffito ot the numbers "88" on a bus station wall and gets caught in the act. He then not only gets charged with vandalizing, but also with "Wiederbetätigung"/"reactivation of the NS-time" (we just had a little debatte here about the correct english translation of the word Wiederbetätigung and that´s what seems to be the most accurrate one).

In private, however, said Someone could spray swastika- grafittos on his bedroom walls as much as he wants (for whatever reasons someone should want to do that anyway...) - that´s allowed, as long as he is the only one seeing that bedroom walls. The moment he invites friends over and that friends see it, theoretically he is guilty of Wiederbetätigung, because the friends are "public".

Someone also could get a Swastika tattoo, or a tat of the number 88/a quote the Nazis used, on his chest - getting the tattoo is legal. his body is his private property. But when Someone wants to go to the public pool in summer, he has to put a big band aid over his chest or keep his shirt on, because the public pool is public and people could see Someone´s tattoo.

Someone also isn´t of course allowed to read out aloud of H´s "Mein Kampf", but he is legally allowed to buy it and to own it, because there is no such a thing as a "forbidden book" in Austria. Forbidden books are seen as something that only exist in dictatorships, so we don´t have officially forbidden books.

Now how is this problem solved, when facing contradictions with the Verbotsgesetz? Someone is allowed to own it and to read it in private, as said. also to download a copy from the internet or buy it at iTunes for 99 cent. But he is not allowed to lend it away, to sell it, to put it up on the internet. And if Soemone wants to buy it, he could buy it from a foreign store or seller, that is legal - but he couldn´t buy it from a austrian store.

If a austrian public institution (like a university library) has original NS-reading material, they usually put up a disclaimer ("for educational purpose only") and are encouraged to make sure they don´t give it to someone who is a Neonazi per accident.Someone is of course not allowed to wear a NS Uniform or put a badge or a piece of fabric with a forbidden rune on his backpack. That´s even a own law section in general, it´s called the Abzeichengesetz.

NOW IF...and here comes the clue, people!.... if Someone is Someone the state licenced artist, things are a little bit different:

When in the 1970s a austrian artist, Helmut Qualtinger**, sat on a old table at the otherwise total empty stage at the People´s Theater in Vienna, and read out aloud of "Mein Kampf", this was perfectly legal*. It even was filmed for TV and you could buy it on VHS and audio cassette(and later DVD and CD).

Prior internet times, when people were curious what the fuss about H.´s book was actually about and wanted to have a look into it, if they didn´t know anyone having it in his private library and would let them discreetly peek into it, they just bought a copy of Qualtingers readings...

Because only dictatorships censor art. So art is mainly a Verbotsgesetz-free zone. That´s the same reason why another artist, Hubsi Kramar, could attend the Viennese Opera Ball in a original SS uniform, with badges and cap and gloves and all, without getting charged***.

(*fun fact: my parents got married in 1975, when my mum was still studying at the Viennese Academy of Arts and had therefor typically 70s artsy friends and aquinatances too. One of their wedding gifts were two tickets to one of this infamous "Qualtinger readings". )

(**Helmut Qualtinger was actually a pretty cool guy, a typical viennese pitch-black humoured, always on the edge, satirical. A liberal, who strongly oppossed reactionism/conservatism and any kind of censorship. The Qualtinger readings were his "typical austrian" way to deal with it.

Qu. is long gone now,he died the traditional death of famous austrian artists: in poverty and out of too much alcohol consumption.)

(*** Hubsi Kramar, on the other hand, is a unfunny and pretentious asshole)

b) holocaust denial. There´s nothing much to say about it, as it is pretty much self-explainatory.

Okay, and now to the further readings:

What I WISHED for was to find any kind of work explaining the pending issue of the Verbotsgesetz in a globalized world, with a focus on social media. I even phoned a former work buddy at the Uni institute, if there is such a work/article/whatever online he may know of, preferably in english. His answer was disappointing, but not suprising (I quote, "Hahaha, No!"). Openly critizising the Verbotsgesetz itself is " so eine Sache"/ "a rather complicated isssue", soo... sorry, no findings.

What may be qite interesting regarding this topic is the Irving Case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_trial

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2006/j ... ation.news

Irving is a complete oddball (to put it elegantly), so that guardian article may take some heavy breathings to read - Deborah Lipstadt, otoh, made some very interesting remarks regarding battling populists with truth.

(PS: It is said, that this trial gave him somewhat of a boost in career and fame in Europe)

The english wikipedia article is unfortunately a bit stubby:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verbotsgesetz_1947

https://books.google.at/books?id=vPZfAw ... ia&f=false

(google book, explains a bit more in english)

Also maybe interesting, the issue with the "Persilscheine", my grandparents always said there was alot haggling and on the other hand alot of blackmailing going on, esp. in the sowjet zone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persilschein

Okay, wall-o´text, but I fear I couldn´t possibly put it shorter.

You knwo, that´s the longest text I have ever written on that topic, as the Verbotsgesetz itself is hardly ever discussed or reflected on much here. Probably because we are so much used to to talking in metaphors and synonyms anyway. With the occassional news break if someone got charged or is suing someone else on behalf of possibly Wiederbetätigung. Or for example that case of the licence plates, which is actually more seen as some kind of alibi action, caused by some hick-hack of political parties and groups. I mean, honestly, we know too that prohibiting the number 18 on a licence plate is far away from being "a mighty powerful tool against possibly neo nazis".

It´s just nobody would say that out loud.

Edited for grammar

[Burris]

Because only dictatorships censor art. So art is mainly a Verbotsgesetz-free zone. That´s the same reason why another artist, Hubsi Kramar, could attend the Viennese Opera Ball in a original SS uniform, with badges and cap and gloves and all, without getting charged***.

(*** Hubsi Kramar, on the other hand, is a unfunny and pretentious asshole)

....

You knwo, that´s the longest text I have ever written on that topic, as the Verbotsgesetz itself is hardly ever discussed or reflected on much here. Probably because we are so much used to to talking in metaphors and synonyms anyway. With the occassional news break if someone got charged or is suing someone else on behalf of possibly Wiederbetätigung. Or for example that case of the licence plates, which is actually more seen as some kind of alibi action, caused by some hick-hack of political parties and groups. I mean, honestly, we know too that prohibiting the number 18 on a licence plate is far away from being "a mighty powerful tool against possibly neo nazis".

It´s just nobody would say that out loud.

It's not at all surprising the damage done by NS policies would leave a major effect in Austria (for example). The fact people are afraid to talk about it, though - that is what gives rise to a culture where they censor the word Nazi on a bulletin board and yet allow someone to show up to a public function in full SS regalia.

[2xx1xy1JD]

UPDATE:

Libby Anne has posted an update on the post, which covers my concerns.

I appreciate her willingness to do so (and understand that with Duggar-gate, it took a bit of time). It's a stark contrast to the reception that I got from a certain fundie blogger to polite disagreement.

[Palimpsest]

Thanks for the update. Did she changed the title as well as adding the email excerpt?

I was sure that Libby Anne would respond well to constructive criticism, but you never know.

[Criscat]

Late to this discussion and find it fascinating. American here. I've always wondered...especially now that we are starting to be generations removed from WWII that either the younger generation is taught about the atrocities of WWII from a global perspective....truthfully...or parts ( the truly horrific such as the holocaust) start to get swept under the rug. When that happens, regardless of the speech used, history has a tendency to repeat itself. Maybe not the same people or the same targets, but that's always something I've wondered. Here in the states, the schools are already kind of doing this with parts of American history that are uncomfortable. Just something I've always wondered...carry on in your discussion.