Yep. WW2 legacy resulted in two major additions to the foundations of new Germany: spying on citizens is highly regulated, freedom of speech does not exist for certain types of speech.

> freedom of speech does not exist for certain types of speech

No country has total freedom of speech, not even the US. Try telling people you will kill the president, even as a joke, and the FBI will come knocking.

Only if the President is not Trump.

> WW2 legacy resulted in two major additions to the foundations of new Germany: spying on citizens is highly regulated

How does it reconcile with it taking nearly 17 years for Germany to outlaw BND from wiretapping DE-CIX?

Just because private entities are bound by certain laws does not mean that those laws apply to the state.

The state has other laws that regulate its ability to spy on its citizens.

And if those laws become too cumbersome you can always ask a free friendly nation to do your spying for you, and get the info from them. And then cross your fingers that the judiciary will follow yout reasoning when you are found out.

The problem is that citing WW2 as reason when the state is excluded from the laws is nonsensical. In WW2 and later the GDR the state was the bad actor, that private companies are restricted from gathering this information would not have stopped the Nazies.

The state does not have different laws because of WW2. It has different laws because it has a different role and obligations than a private individual.

We allow the state to levy taxes, expropriate, imprison, and even kill (war, death sentence) because we have democratically decided that it was necessary for the organisation of our society.

It is a valid point. I would normally argue that foundation of the law and its implementation are two different issues. Not to mention, over time, previous norms can be eroded.

for these who don't know what OP is talking about, TIL

https://netzpolitik.org/2015/how-the-german-foreign-intellig...

> > WW2 legacy resulted in two major additions to the foundations of new Germany: spying on citizens is highly regulated

> How does it reconcile with it taking nearly 17 years for Germany to outlaw BND from wiretapping DE-CIX?

He said only that "is regulated". This is the same like "CIA/NSA/FBI must obey the law". They actually do what they want. (Now the NSA is wiretapping DE-CIX and giving the info to BND)

BND is not a private organisation but a part of the federal government. They are a secret service. That's why they can get away with it, they cannot be fined, sued or even investigated properly in such matters.

And while one of the lessons of Nazi Germany is keeping the secret services on a tight leash, that leash has become longer and longer during the cold war. Nowadays, I do not think there is any effective control of Germany's secret services anymore.

I don't think that's really a WW2 legacy, rather lessons from east germany's dictatorship.

When was the German Democratic Republic a dictatorship?

Not taking side on the topic here, just a quick note on the dicatorship classification.

While some folks think a dictatorship requires a single person or small group in charge, it is widespread opinion in Germany, that the GDR was is in fact seen as a "dicatorship by one party", the SED. Mostly (to my understanding) this is based on the lack of separation of powers found in the GDR.

The "dictatorship" question is regulary a topic of more or less philosophical but most certainly emotional debates with each side being sure they are right. I cannot tell the percentage of "dictatorship"/"non-dicatorship" proponents.

(I am no history nerd.)

edit: pls replace "that the GDR was is in fact seen" with "that the GDR is in fact seen" in your mind

> When was the German Democratic Republic a dictatorship?

If someone wanted to leave the GDR, were they able to?

If not, why do you think they weren't able to? Why do you think people wanted to leave, and why do you think people wanted to stop them? Why do you think they had to literally shoot people to stop them leaving the country if it wasn't a dictatorship and they were welcome on the other side?

Are you confused about the 'Democratic' part of the name? North Korea also calls itself 'Democratic' today.

Read some history:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_East_Germany

> Elections were held but were effectively controlled by the SED and state hierarchy, as noted by Hans Modrow [communist premier of East Germany] and others.

The last premier of East Germany was literally convicted of electoral fraud after unification.

> Modrow did not deny the charges, but argued that the trial was politically motivated and that the court lacked jurisdiction for crimes committed in East Germany

It was a dictatorship. Any reasonable historian or even person there at the time will tell you this. The literal Premier himself didn't even deny it.

> If someone wanted to leave the GDR, were they able to?

Why do you think that has anything to do with whether it is a dictatorship?

Not having free elections makes it a dictatorship (or at least not a democracy). Not allowing people to leave makes it a shitty place to live, but that is separate from if its a dictatorship.

People generally want to get away from dictatorships, and dictatorships generally don’t want them to leave. See for example North Korea.

How else do you explain people willing to die to leave and why do you think the party tried to stop them?

> Not having free elections makes it a dictatorship (or at least not a democracy).

That’s how it was! The leader of the dictating party does not deny this is how it was! You’re delusional!

Democratic nations usually don't have laws preventing people from leaving, but I also agree that this isn't what makes it a dictatorship.

> Not having free elections makes it a dictatorship

There is a good sign that your free elections aren't when you have 99% percent approval rating on every election. A sharp drop in approval ratings once you no longer control the elections directly may also be indicative of problems with your implementation of democracy.

They were a communist single-party system, with properly rigged elections, leaders handpicked by Moscow from the finest Moscow communism schools and a watchful oversight from Moscow. Not just the citizens were kept in line with the rest of the communist block by troops from other communist states, that applied to the leadership as well. Prague spring was the czech leader Dubĉek trying to introduce reforms, angering Moscow, who then invaded and put a stop to that reform nonsense...

The GDR was a dictatorship good and proper. They just avoided giving the impression of having a single leader by speaking through the politbureau. And the local dictators were controlled by the ones in Moscow.

Well, it called itself a dictatorship, at least in the early years:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diktatur_des_Proletariats

But jokes aside: if a very small elite clings to power and doesn't allow free elections, doesn't let people live in freedom, even kills them if they try to leave, and eventually is overturned by the people, these are all signs of a "lupenreine" dictatorship, no?

A fair point, despite the downvotes. The DDR could correctly be described as a one-party state, a totalitarian regime, or a puppet state of the USSR, but not a dictatorship. Some good evidence for this is that you can't (without Wikipedia's help or a very serious background in European history) name a single leader of the state, the dictator.

I don't think this is just a pedantic point. It's good to push back against the labelling of "everything you don't like" with the most convenient wrongthink labels: see the trend towards labeling $BAD_THINGS as communism, terrorism, or more fashionably these days, fascism.

If you look up definitions for dictatorship, few insist on the single leader (vs a group of people) and quite a few explicitly include a party as the group wielding power.