this post was submitted on 22 Jan 2025
338 points (98.0% liked)
pics
20090 readers
791 users here now
Rules:
1.. Please mark original photos with [OC] in the title if you're the photographer
2..Pictures containing a politician from any country or planet are prohibited, this is a community voted on rule.
3.. Image must be a photograph, no AI or digital art.
4.. No NSFW/Cosplay/Spam/Trolling images.
5.. Be civil. No racism or bigotry.
Photo of the Week Rule(s):
1.. On Fridays, the most upvoted original, marked [OC], photo posted between Friday and Thursday will be the next week's banner and featured photo.
2.. The weekly photos will be saved for an end of the year run off.
Instance-wide rules always apply. https://mastodon.world/about
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Brave protest. Pretty sure Nazi imagery is illegal in Germany. Somebody correct me if I’m wrong
Making the German state officially state that this is Nazi imagery would be a worthwhile win lol.
I'm pretty sure they have explicitly come out and said that the gesture was what we all know it to be. I'm sure the Internet can verify it for you though
Not sure about anyone from the government much less in an official function but e.g. the Zeit used the title "A Hitler salute is a Hitler salute is a Hitler salute", and the rest of the press isn't any more ambiguous, either.
lol didn’t even think of that
Holy shit nice
There's plenty of "fair use" cases which would allow it.
§86a STGB allows for the use of "symbols of anti-constitutional organizations" in cases of:
And probably applying in this case - in protesting said anti-constitutional organizations, for example a crossed out Swastika as a form of protest against Nazis is still very much legal.
Most important is the intent. If you plan to use those symbols with the intent of furthering the ideology of anti-constitutional organizations, it is probably forbidden. The intention has to be clearly against those organizations, otherwise it might be actionable.
Btw the communist party of Germany, the KPD is also considered an anti-constitutional organization and therefore it's symbols are forbidden in the same way.
Which is funny because the video game series Wolfenstein famously had to change all of their in-game imagery. The series is about killing Nazis, but it was banned in Germany until the game devs removed all of the swastikas. Because apparently showing the swastika is banned, even when it’s used explicitly to say “these are the bad guys.”
Games (until recently?) were not considered as art by the courts in Germany.
Yeah, there were some real conservative views on what counts as art or education and what does not that influenced that decision I figure.
It's silly regardless on both sides in my personal view. Like yeah it's a little silly to not allow it, since the law would easily have allowed for it but also - it's a Swastika, I'm fine in a video game without it, I'm not gonna die on that specific hill for sure.
You wouldn't even have to die on that hill anymore because you can buy the uncensored wolfensteins in Germany today.
Yes! Interestingly, this only is possible now because the rules changed in 2018: https://usk.de/usk-beruecksichtigt-bei-altersfreigabe-von-spielen-kuenftig-sozialadaequanz/
The German bureaucracy changed their stance from "Nazi shit should not be in games, period" to "it depends on social adequacy" which meant that games from then on where handled the same way as other forms of art.
Game publishers could've changed it way earlier but noone bothered to bring a case to court but opted to self-censor instead, thus the BPjM had to follow an age-old, singular, court ruling.
The game that prompted the change was this one, in particular Gauland's special move is a swastika. Someone, predictably, complained, and the case didn't even make it before court as the state attorney said "this is obviously completely legal political commentary".
To top it all off the game was published by public TV. Same people who made this sketch.
Haha I hadn't seen that game before, thanks for that. Gauland is depicted exactly as ridiculous as he should be treated.
Quick, someone translate "dackelkrawattig" for the Anglos.
Oh, and for anyone who doesn't recall: He's the one whose clothes got nicked.
"Are we the baddies?"
"I dunno, our gear looks okay now?"
Does "anti-constitutional" mean against the German constitution specifically, or the concept of constitutions? If the former, prohibiting ideas of government other than the active one is a pretty strict restriction on speech. I totally get the desire to outlaw imagery supporting Nazism because no one wants that shit to come back, but lumping communism in there too seems a bit strange. Or maybe I'm just totally misunderstanding what you said.
Specifically the German constitution. Or as also worded in the law "the free democratic basic order of the FRG" -"die freiheitlich demokratische Grundordnung der BRD".
What this phrase means specifically is defined by decisions of the federal constitutional court and includes things like basic human rights, checks and balances, the independence of courts, the multi party system etc.
Disrupting or trying to abolish those basic democratic laws is considered as trying to build a dictatorship or other form of unjust system.
I don't know the specifics about the KPD case but there are German communist parties, for example the DKP. It's just that the KPD is considered undemocratic.
In addition to what others have commented, communist and all other flavors of political parties are protected under the german constitution as long as they aren't anti-democratic or call for violations of basic human rights. That's because the right to form a party and express your political opinion is also protected in the constitution. So ironically it is really hard to ban fascist parties because the highest court would have to prove that their exercising their freedom to form a political party is in conflict with other basic rights and freedoms.
Communism?
Anti-constitutional here means directed against the Basic Law of the FRG or the constitution of Brandenburg (federal state).
The Basic Law does not explicitly ban socialism, AFAIK.
The ban on Nazi imagery is kind of necessary for a state patched together in the post-liberation Allied occupation.
Freedom of art in that regard. The only illegal thing might be to project something to the factory
Nope it's legal. §303 StGB:
Projections are far from permanent. What I'm blanking on right now is whether cleaning something is captured under that wording, I vaguely remember them discussing changing it, dunno if they have. If a wall is dirty enough you can make a great graffito with nothing but a pressure washer.
A projection is not permanent mate.
And what do you think it is that I said?
~~You say it could be illegal and then quote a law that talks about sometime else. I have no idea why you would do that.~~
Oh sorry I misread legal as illegal. My bad.
That is what he said yes.
Is that a thing in Germany? Genuinely asking
Yes. You can even use a swastika if the intend is clear. For example a figure throwing it into a trashcan.
I'm not a lawyer, but the word "Heil" ist not forbidden and Also its a picture of something relevant that happened. So in my opinion the Art itself is not illegal. Only the projection onto the building.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
Appreciate the insight!
You're welcome :)
It is with few exceptions. Given that it looks like the purpose is to call out a Nazi supporter I think they wouldn't get in trouble for that though.
It's not exactly uncommon for systems set up to oppose something to end up supporting them instead. See the ADL covering for Elon and condemning those opposed to genocide as antisemitic. In theory the ADL should be opposed to fascism, but because Israel has become fascist they found themselves on the same side as those who had been and would be their oppressors.
In the United States, teenage kids were put on the sex offenders registry for sending each other nudes. Those laws are in place to protect minors from people who are not minors, but apparently the judges did not see it that way in sentencing. Gotta love the word of the law being worth more than its spirit!