The Two Californias
It's About Time: Trump Has Designated This a Weapon of Mass Destruction
If These Three Words Dominate a News Presser, You Shouldn't Go on Television
We Have More Details on the Killing of Rob Reiner and His Wife...
Australia's Prime Minister Vows More Gun Restrictions After Terrorist Attack
What This Muslim Man Did During the Australia Shooting Will Shock You
House Republicans Just Dropped a Bombshell About DC Crime Rates
FBI Says It Foiled Planned New Year's Eve Terrorist Attack in This City
Australia Proves Gun Control Doesn't Work
Islamic Preacher Vows to Take Germany Back to the Stone Age
NBC News Stirs the 'Systemic Racism' Pot With Update on Once-Inaccessible Activities
Little Sisters of the Poor Have Filed Yet Another Appeal to Protect Themselves...
From Anxiety to Alignment: What This Week’s Data Tells Us About the Right’s...
Chile Elects Trump-Style Conservative José Antonio Kast as President
Rabbi Killed in Antisemitic Terror Attack Had His Warnings Ignored by the Australian...
Tipsheet
Premium

Echoes of Weimar

AP Photo/Ebrahim Noroozi

They say those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. It seems the powers that be in Germany missed that memo, which is ironic considering Germany's not-too-distant history.

During the Weimar Republic, Germany had strict speech codes and laws that it ruthlessly enforced. Those laws let the government censor press criticism as well as anything it considered "advocating violence" (gee, doesn't that sound familiar?). Of course, these laws targeted many Nazi propaganda outlets and speakers, including Adolf Hitler himself.

It was in November, 102 years ago, that Hitler and a band of supporters staged a putsch at the Bürgerbräukeller beer hall in Munich, Bavaria. They were trying to overthrow the Weimar Republic and put the Nazis in power. The putsch ended in a shootout between the Nazis and Bavarian soldiers.

For his part in it, Hitler was sentenced to five years in prison but served only eight or nine months. He was banned from speaking in public for two years following that release.

Fat lot of good that did, huh?

Earlier this year, Vice President J.D. Vance humiliated European politicians in general, and German politicians in particular, by taking them to task over speech codes and laws that are eerie echoes of those imposed by the Weimar Republic. 

“In Britain and across Europe, free speech, I fear, is in retreat," Vance said. He added, "You cannot win a democratic mandate by censoring your opponents or putting them in jail."

Margaret Brennan of CBS News was so appalled by Vance's comments that she tried (and failed spectacularly) to blame the rise of Nazism and the Holocaust on free speech. The exact opposite is true, of course. It was the suppression of free speech that gave the Nazis power. 

We're not surprised that Brennan wasn't listening.

But it seems Germany wasn't listening, either, because in yet another example of anti-free speech authoritarianism, the police raided the home of a German man because he had the audacity to call politicians "parasites" in a social media post.

Here's more:

The thing to understand is that this is not about one man’s post. It is about a bureaucracy that treats speech as something to manage and a set of enforcement structures that expand to fill the space they are given.

Start with the enforcement context. Germany has built a sprawling ecosystem around “online hate”: specialized prosecutor units, NGO tip lines, and automated scanning for taboo keywords.
The model is compliance first and legal theory second.

Once you create an apparatus like this, it behaves the way bureaucracies behave. It looks for work. It justifies resources by producing cases. A tiny X post with inflammatory language becomes a target because it contains the right keyword, not because it has societal impact.

Police behavior fits the same pattern. Confiscating phones is strategically useful because it imposes real pain without requiring a conviction.

And here's the post in question:

There is nothing violent or hateful in that post. It is a factual, albeit acerbic, observation of an economic reality: those who live off the largess of the state do not contribute to the state.

If politicians and authorities worry that it's an incitement of violence against them, it reveals their guilty consciences.

The truth, after all, hurts.

Of course, I'm not saying Germany is on track to relive the Third Reich. But there are lessons from history that we need to learn, and the first one is this: suppressing free speech does more harm than good. Given the demographic shift in Germany, it would do well for them to realize this before it's too late.

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement