
Germany, in a First, Shuts Down Left-Wing Extremist Website - Overtonwindow
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/08/25/world/europe/germany-bans-far-left-antifa-website.html
======
jacquesm
This was already covered earlier today:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15097645](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15097645)

------
ucaetano
This is a controversial topic, so I guess I'm risking massive downvotes,
but...

I come from a country where being called a leftist is a compliment, and being
called a rightist is generally viewed as an insult (being a centrist - like
myself - also implies - in this country - that you're a rightist, go figure).

While the left has always resorted to violence and aggressive tactics (beating
up professors who refused to yield to "student strikes" at universities, for
example), they have always claimed the moral high ground. In the meantime, any
public action or protest by the right (even moderate right) was generally
viewed with scorn.

In other words, it was a mirror-image of the US. While the radical left in the
US exists, it is mostly harmless, unlike the radical right.

Europe largely works as a mirror image of the US in that sense. In France, for
example, people view as acceptable that workers conduct violent strikes,
sometimes kidnapping and beating up managers, but any rightist manifestation
is seen as an extreme danger.

It is good to see countries striving for a more neutral treatment of violent
actions, from any ends of the political spectrum.

[Just in case it wasn't clear enough: antifas/radical-left in the US are
pretty much a harmless joke, and by no means equivalent to the radical-
right/extreme-right/alt-right/Nazis/white-supremacist/whatever threat]

~~~
mhh__
Which country would that be?

~~~
Aardverk
Probably Sweden, because he confused the word "manifestation" with
"demonstration" which is what many Swedes do, even if their English is great.

~~~
ucaetano
Nope :)

I can think of at least 5 languages that would make that mistake, probably
representing dozens (Dozens!) of countries. Italian, French, Portuguese,
Catalan, Corsican, etc...

And I didn't confuse manifestation with demonstration. A demonstration IS a
manifestation, but not all manifestations are demonstrations.

------
briholt
The abject denial of left-wing violence in the media and the correlating
hysteria about right wing violence is disturbing and is obviously fueling the
false sense of self-righteousness that is driving that very violence. Anyone
with a shred of integrity denounces ALL violence, even if the perpetrators
share your ideology.

To help burst anyone's delusions, here's just a few recent left-wing violent
incidents off the top of my head.

[http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2017/05/24/berkeley-college-
prof...](http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2017/05/24/berkeley-college-professor-
arrested-as-assault-suspect/)

[https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/10/us/dallas-quiet-after-
pol...](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/10/us/dallas-quiet-after-police-
shooting-but-protests-flare-elsewhere.html)

[http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/17/us/baton-route-police-
shooting...](http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/17/us/baton-route-police-
shooting/index.html)

[https://www.rt.com/usa/366452-portland-riots-anti-
trump/](https://www.rt.com/usa/366452-portland-riots-anti-trump/)

[https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-mob-at-
middlebury-148858650...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-mob-at-
middlebury-1488586505)

~~~
pjc50
> denounces ALL violence

Police violence? War on Terror? Armed border patrols?

~~~
apersona
Yes, all violence. Just because I don't support left-wing violence doesn't
mean that I support whatever the left-wing is fighting against.

That's what I hate about politics nowadays - it's either you're agree with us
on everything or we immediately assume that you disagree with us on
everything.

------
Dirlewanger
>the ban was an “illegitimate act of censorship” and an “arbitrary limitation
of freedom of expression and freedom of the press.”

Being a filthy ignorant American, all I know about Germany regarding freedom
of X is that they do have hard limits on anything related to Nazism. So how
"arbitrary" is this really, especially when there's a precedent for a limit on
freedom of speech? Does she even have an argument?

~~~
SEMW
Of note: that quote's from a spokesperson for Die Linke, which is the direct
descendent of the party (the SED) that governed Soviet-occupied east Germany
between 1949 and 1990. Which was hardly well known for its high levels of
freedom, of expression or otherwise

~~~
Xylakant
Look, no party in the east was known for being a paragon of free experience or
anything free. Our chancellor was member of a political party that served as a
fig leaf for the GDR government. Most parties in the west trace their lineage
back to parties that elected the NSDAP in power in the can hope of keeping
Hitler in check. The CDU notably elected and supported judges in their ranks
that signed death warrants in the final days of the war (Filbinger et. al.)
It's 27 years now that the GDR ceased to exist, history has been messy and
there's a lot of idiots in the ranks of Die Linke, I get it (1), but it's
slowly about time to judge their statements based on their political ideas and
their actions where they are in power instead of their precursors. Just
slapping down a statement because it's from a politician from their side
doesn't really cut it any more.

(1) as much as there are in other parties ranks more or less.

~~~
elcapitan
> Most parties in the west trace their lineage back to parties that elected
> the NSDAP in power in the can hope of keeping Hitler in check.

No other parties "elected the NSDAP into power", the President Hindenburg
appointed Hitler as chancellor. Who then went on to illegalize all other
parties.

~~~
yorwba
While Hindenburg appointed Hitler as chancellor, only a minority of Hitler's
cabinet were actually members of the NSDAP, others were without party
affiliation (like the previous chancellor Franz von Papen) or members of the
DNVP (German National People's Party)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_Cabinet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_Cabinet)

The usual explanation is that they wanted to "tame" Hitler, but in effect they
only served to help him consolidate his power.

EDIT: Regarding the lineage of current German parties: neither Zentrum
(ancestor of the CDU) nor SPD had any part in the deal that brought Hitler to
power; the other major parties were only founded later.

~~~
Xylakant
You're certainly right that the greens were founded later, but the liberals
existed as a party at the times of Hitlers rise to power. There were no other
major parties in Western Germany.

However, we both might want to reread our history books a bit. One crucial
step in the Nazi coup was the Enabling Act of 1933 which gave the NSDAP or
rather Hitlers Cabinet - despite not having a majority in the parliament - the
right to pass laws. The communists had been suppressed before and could not
vote and I remembered that the SPD abstained. That's where I'm wrong - they
voted against, at least those present. Some were not present at the vote. The
rest of the parliament, including the Zentrum and the Liberals (which had 5
seats) voted in favor, granting the required 2/3 majority. Many Zentrum
members, including the head of the party at that time were strict nationalist.
Other members voted under duress. So yes, the Zentrum had a part in the
dealing that brought Hitler to power. See
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933)
and
[https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erm%C3%A4chtigungsgesetz_vom_2...](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erm%C3%A4chtigungsgesetz_vom_24._M%C3%A4rz_1933#Abstimmung)

There's a fairly interesting list of Ex-NSDAP members that after the war
joined other parties. [https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_ehemaliger_NSDAP-
Mitglie...](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_ehemaliger_NSDAP-
Mitglieder,_die_nach_Mai_1945_politisch_t%C3%A4tig_waren) (among them
Filbinger, and, notably, Hans Furler, President of the European Parliament and
Genscher, the Exterior Minister at the time of the Reuinion)

~~~
elcapitan
If you read your history book, you may also remember that that vote was by no
means an actual vote. Opposing parties were threatened and the parliament was
filled with stormtrooper thugs. Using that vote to deduce any kind of
acceptance of the violent new ruler is just absurd.

------
frgtpsswrdlame
So Germany gets embarrassed by protests and shuts down the website they used
to organize? Seems pretty bad, especially when you combine this with Trump
getting information on left-wingers who opposed him. Maybe right-wing sites
are getting de-platformed but in those instances it's private companies
asserting their rights. Seems like the leftwingers are the ones being actively
discriminated against by the government(s).

~~~
koolba
> Seems like the leftwingers are the ones being actively discriminated against
> by the government(s).

I can assure you that if you create a right wing website with bomb making
instructions and a call to action to destroy the government, then it too will
be shut down.

This isn't about left vs. right, this is about order vs. anarchy.

~~~
drcongo
Wait, anarchy is not the opposite of disorder, it's the opposite of
authoritarianism.

------
gormo2
All the more reason tech companies should take a stand against any kind of
censorship, especially along political lines (be it left/right/whatever)

~~~
liquidise
It saddens me how the discussion here is focused on what i will call "fair"
censorship, where because X was censored, Y should also be censored to make it
even.

My American political bent surely influences this, but the censorship of
_ideas_ on the internet leaves a foul taste in my mouth. I would hope that was
an opinion shared among the majority of tech folks, but comments lately on HN
lead to me believe that is no longer the case.

~~~
thomasz
This has nothing to do with _ideas_. The site was used as a dumping ground for
letters claiming responsibility^1, doxxing of right wing activists, calls for
violent protest and so on. The whole thing is a little bit odd because in the
past, this kind of prosecution has been targeted way bigger threats:
Jihadists, Biker Gangs, paramilitary Nazi groups and stuff like that.

\------

^1 for what may be best described as "petty terror": Torched cars, smashed
windows etc.

------
staticautomatic
Germany has a history with them, for example the RAF. This may be the first
website but it's not the first time.

------
posguy
Raiding people's homes over Facebook posts while claiming to protect free
speech is downright wrong, just another instance of censorship and
authoritarianism.

This is just like the WTO protests here in Seattle, suppressing the citizenry
so you can hold a conference with the bankers and influential politicians from
20 countries is apt to not end well. I'm sure Germany will focus their
panopticon to try and eliminate those who seek to organize strong opposition
to the G-20 summit.

------
mjevans
Extremists, particularly those demonstrating or inciting violent (hopefully)
illegal actions, should be reported to all applicable authorities.

It should be up to the law, applied to all with equality, that decides the
eventual outcome. In a short term it may be more useful to monitor the
activities and determine bad actors that should also be removed from society.

------
posterboy
You can't shutdown a website twice, so I'll give them that, but there's bound
to be more than one dimension of reasons for censorship and more than this one
occurance, which I guess was found "Volksverhetzung".

------
nikolay
The Neo-Commies are as dangerous as the Neo-Nazis!

~~~
ycmbntrthrwaway
Antifa are not neo-commies and not all commies are bolsheviks.

~~~
nikolay
It's the radical mentality that's dangerous, not the political platform
itself.

------
mamon
It's nice to see that someone finally acknowledges existence of left-wing
extremists. However, I'm still waiting on serious move against Antifa.

~~~
ycmbntrthrwaway
That is what happened in Russia. First they got nazis, fighting people with
armature, knifes and acid in the streets (car in USA). Then antifa (autonomous
action etc.) stand up and start opposing nazis. Then nazis kill people (see
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anastasia_Baburova](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anastasia_Baburova),
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Khutorskoy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Khutorskoy)).
Then government suppresses both nazis (many of them got life sentences,
especially those from BORN) _and_ antifa, with the support of people (those
like you). Then you have no activists in your country, Putin/Trump reigns
forever.

Nazis are intolerant and should be opposed:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance)

Update: the website used to track nazis is still alive: [https://nazi-
watch.noblogs.org/](https://nazi-watch.noblogs.org/) See archives section: it
starts in 2008 and ends in 2013. Now antifa in USA are doing the same thing,
exposing nazis to their employers and doxing them. USA is repeating Russian
history.

~~~
rpiguy
Trump doesn't reign, he barely has control of the executive branch of
government over which he has direct authority. He is opposed by his own party,
congress, and big business. There is no collusion of power behind Trump like
there is behind Putin. They are both seen as strong men but only one is really
a strong man.

Second, classifying ANTIFA as a terrorist organization is nothing like Russia
cracking down on Nazis. In the US you have free speech even if the government
believes you are a terrorist organization. Now if the left wing get's their
way and starts imposing hate speech laws, then ANTIFA needs to watch out
because then they will be silenced by the government.

Finally, there is a deep respect for protesting in the US but not for people
who do it hiding behind masks. Ghandi didn't wear a mask, Malcom X didn't wear
a mask, the kids at Kent State that were shot by the police didn't wear masks.
A mask indicates you are there to do harm. Sometimes harm is warranted, but we
respect protesters who actually practice Civil Disobedience, part of which is
owning up to what you did.

My only point here is that I believe Antifa would get more support from the
American people if they could convince the 10-20% of members that show up
dressed in black and wearing masks to just dress down and lose the goon squad
apparel.

~~~
dragonwriter
> He is opposed by his own party,

He is opposed by a significant fraction of the other elected officials in his
party in some issues, but he's also carrying out a campaign to bring he party
to heel (and has not been especially constrained in taking extraordinary
executive actions by the intraparty opposition, though that has limited his
legislative success.) While his public support is weak overall, it's mostly
concentrated in the committed electoral base of the party. So he's actually
positioned better than one might expect for the intraparty struggle. If he
remains in office through the midterms, I wouldn't be surprised to see him in
relatively undisputed control of the party after them.

> Ghandi didn't wear a mask, Malcom X didn't wear a mask, the kids at Kent
> State that were shot by the police didn't wear masks

Another thing that all those people have in common is being shot for their
activism.

~~~
rpiguy
And they are deeply respected...

Just saying Antifa would get a lot more support if they changed their look.
People in black masks busting up Starbucks are not who anyone wants in charge.
They just do Trump a favor.

~~~
ycmbntrthrwaway
> People in black masks busting up Starbucks are not who anyone wants in
> charge.

They don't want to be in charge, most of them are anarchists (but only a
minority of anarchists are antifa and not all antifa are anarchists).

~~~
Yetanfou
The majority in the rioting mobs don't have a clue what they really stand for.
They might be able to articulate, haltingly, what they are _against_ \- which
is whatever the loudest mouth in the mob has told them they're fighting - but
if you ask them what they really stand _for_ the answer is generally some
incoherent rabble of buzzwords.

They are like Lenin's 'useful idiots' [1], although the question is what use
they serve to whom.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot)

------
scythe
I wonder if this will be a wake-up call to those people on the left in the US
who have been doubting the value of the First Amendment. It's ironic to me
that many of the people saying Nazi/KKK symbols should be illegal "like in
Germany" because of "incitement" are the same people saying things like
"punching Nazis is cool"; how is that not incitement? Things like this are an
inevitable consequence of losing the bright-line rule against censoring ideas.

~~~
emn13
Incitement to violence isn't necessarily protected speech in the US.

The boundary is of necessity vague. IMNSHO: arguing that free speech should be
absolute is almost tantamount to arguing it is irrelevant. Isn't the point
that messages matter, and being able to exchange them is powerful? Then
clearly that power can be used - and _abused_. Thus to argue that it is
_right_ to _never_ constrain speech implies you either believe it is of no
consequence; or believe harm is good (i.e. are malicious or insane); or
believe enforcement is impossible or counter-productive.

A dose of rationality in the free speech debate would be appreciated. Heck,
it's not like this is the only exception... libel, fraud, and a variety of IP
laws all suggest a long history of consistently democratically-backed
infringements to free speech. Were our ancestors all crazy?

~~~
scythe
> Isn't the point that messages matter, and being able to exchange them is
> powerful?

No, the point is that people matter, and being able to understand them is
crucial. If ideas are suppressed (rather than merely problematic _expressions_
) people become dishonest and you can't criticize their real beliefs because
you don't know what they are. For example another person noted that neo-Nazi
organizations survive in Germany by simply pretending to be something else.
That's not success by any reasonable metric.

>A dose of rationality in the free speech debate would be appreciated.

If there's one thing that's truly ridiculous it's that fascistic positions
like yours are considered "rational".

~~~
emn13
So I'm fascist now, really? I guess I better change my mind faced with this
reasonable objection.

