Pretty much sums it up. Also of note is that Germany already had and still has laws against numerous forms of speech, most notably anything that could threaten the public order, which you could mold into a justification to basically stop any speech. The only thing preventing that isn't a law, it is the overall political culture. But with polarization rising, it can quickly become more serious.

Most of these laws stems from a time where monarchy wanted to suppress unsanctioned speech.

The Nazis made a lot of political capital because people wanted them banned and censored. Of course that was just political play and they set new standards for suppression of information and propaganda, but that came after they got into power.

    > Also of note is that Germany already had and still has laws against numerous forms  
    > of speech, most notably anything that could threaten the public order, which you  
    > could mold into a justification to basically stop any speech.

Germany has no laws against "anything that could threaten the public order". This is just unsubstantiated nonsense.

There are laws against hate speech: "Volksverhetzung", a more direct translation: "incitement of the people", i.e. hate speech with the intent of causing mob violence or the persecution of minorities. There are also laws against disrupting the public order: "Erregung öffentlichen Ärgernisses", so "causing public offence", but those don't really target speech, they're more about taking your pants off in public and peeing on the sidewalk.

Also, neither of those laws are from the time of the monarchy.

    > The Nazis made a lot of political capital because people wanted them banned and  
    > censored. Of course that was just political play and they set new standards for  
    > suppression of information and propaganda, but that came after they got into  
    > power.

The Nazis also made a lot of political capital because people didn't ban them for democratic and free-speech reasons. As Goebbels, the Nazi's chief propagandist, himself said:

    > Wir gehen in den Reichstag hinein, um uns im Waffenarsenal der Demokratie mit  
    > deren eigenen Waffen zu versorgen. Wir werden Reichstagsabgeordnete, um die  
    > Weimarer Gesinnung mit ihrer eigenen Unterstützung lahmzulegen. Wenn die  
    > Demokratie so dumm ist, uns für diesen Bärendienst Freifahrkarten und Diäten zu 
    > geben, so ist das ihre eigene Sache.

Translation:

    > We enter the Reichstag [Weimar Republic parliament] to stock ourselves with  
    > weapons from democracy's own arsenal. We become assemblymen of the Reichstag to  
    > take down the spirit of Weimar with its own support. If democracy is so stupid  
    > to supply us with hall passes and diets for this disservice we do to it, then  
    > that is its own problem.

Your entire comment is a great example of the bullshit asymmetry principle.

There are also laws against "gross mischief". While the legal definition is more precise than the term might imply, you can be certain that such laws exist.

I picked the example because it can collide with freedom of speech as you can imagine. If you demonstrating something and your placard is seen as insulting, the police can force you to take it down.

Laws against speech like "Volksverhetzung" were already in place in the late 19th century. The monarchy was ended in 1918. There is a constant with laws restricting speech and it is mostly those in power just wanting to do so. That was mostly the case in Germany.

> As Goebbels, the Nazi's chief propagandist, himself said

Perhaps he said that so people start to destroy democracy themselves. He had a knack for propaganda and fooling people.

    > To their credit they've also relaxed a bit over the years. For example, they 
    > lifted the ban on Mein Kampf and it flew off the shelves (https://www.bbc.com
    > /news/world-europe-38495456) not because the country was full of secret Nazis 
    > this whole time just waiting for it, but because the German people strongly 
    > desire freedom.

Factually wrong take. Mein Kampf was never "banned", in fact, there is no such thing as book bans under German law, as there is no censorship - article 5 of the Basic Law explicitly says so. The state can make it illegal to sell and advertise media to minors if it is considered dangerous, and Mein Kampf is and always was on that list.

The reason Mein Kampf could not be distributed until a few years ago is because after Hitler's death, the copyright on Mein Kampf fell to the state of Bavaria (for convoluted reasons), and Bavaria just never reprinted it, nor gave license to reprint it. Therefore, any copying of the book was piracy and was prosecuted under piracy laws. Because German copyright ends 70 years after the death of the author, this no longer applies, and the book can be printed and distributed again.

Note that public distribution of the book for nazi propaganda purposes is still banned under German hate speech laws ("Volksverhetzung") - not because it is this particular book, but because all nazi propaganda in public is blanket banned. This is why the now-released official Bavarian-government-approved copy of Mein Kampf contains additional commentary by historians to situate Hitler's remarks in historic context.

> The reason Mein Kampf could not be distributed until a few years ago is because after Hitler's death, the copyright on Mein Kampf fell to the state of Bavaria (

Bavaria used copyright to enforce an "unofficial" ban on the book. It's ridiculous to try to paint the situation as one where Bavaria just never got around to reprinting it.

This was of course intentional, but you incorrectly claimed that

    > To their credit they've also relaxed a bit over the years. For example, 
    > they lifted the ban on Mein Kampf

This just never happened. No ban was ever lifted. This does not show some change in the German mindset towards being more tolerant of Nazi speech, as you insinuate. The copyright expired - that is all.

If you'd like another example where German citizens are being subjected to less censorship, the restrictions on Nazi images in video games have been somewhat lightened. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45142651

As mentioned above, the USK cannot "censor" games, it is responsible for deciding which games (or other pieces of media) are considered "harmful for the youth" (and by the way, it is a public-private partnership, not a government body). Games considered "harmful for the youth" (i.e. games that are, colloquially, "auf dem Index") may by law not be distributed or advertised to minors. They may still be imported, sold, and otherwise distributed, as long as care is taken that they are only distributed to people of age.

Because it's essentially impossible to ensure that any particular advertisement will only be seen by adults, this however means that games not approved by the USK may practically not be publicly advertised at all. Because game publishing companies have a strong incentive to be allowed to advertise their games, they will often self-censor to ensure USK approval. This is done for commercial, not legal reasons; if the companies didn't want to advertise their games, they wouldn't have to abide by USK guidelines.

It is also illegal to advertise tobacco in Germany, and it is also illegal to sell tobacco to minors. Unless you believe that this constitutes a "tobacco ban" in Germany, it is hard to argue that video games are "banned" under this law.

That said, the 2018 change in USK policy that allows video games showing anti-constitutional symbolism to still be approved as long as the message is clearly anti-nazi is still perfectly reasonable, and probably a good development, as it aligns USK policy in this regard with policy that it previously took on other media.

> This is done for commercial, not legal reasons; if the companies didn't want to advertise their games, they wouldn't have to abide by USK guidelines.

That's a ban by any reasonable standard. That's like saying that a requirement that churches be built on the moon wasn't banning churches, or a requirement that Jews who own businesses pay a 95% tax isn't a ban on Jews owning businesses. In some technical sense it's not a complete ban, but if the government says that if you do X, you face so many restrictions that you'd go broke, that's defacto a ban. It's an excuse made by people who like to pretend that they're not getting their hands dirty by literally banning something, while banning it in practice.

There's a huge difference between regulating drugs or the ad industry and censoring artistic works and Germany has a long history of censoring artistic works including video games intended for adult audiences. They can call it whatever else they want but when the people of Germany are unable to access art in its original form, if they are even able to access it at all, strictly because of what that art depicts that's censorship.

In the US we have our own problems with censorship. I've had to track down copies of video games released overseas to get uncensored versions myself. Censorship in art is a huge problem, but it's a lot more dangerous when people can't even recognize when it's happening.

Sure they ban books (or punish authors for writing them, which amounts to the same thing).

https://www.racket.news/p/madness-american-satirist-cj-hopki...

Just when you may have thought things couldn’t get any crazier: American playwright and humorist C.J. Hopkins, profiled in this space on numerous occasions, has been sent a “punishment order” by a German judge, offering him a Sophie’s Choice of 60 days in jail or 3,600 euros.

His crime? Essentially, insulting the German health minister in a tweet, and using a scarcely-visible image of a Swastika on a mask in a book critical of the global pandemic response, The Rise of the New Normal Reich. He was first accused of this “crime” in June, shortly after Roger Waters was placed under investigation for wearing his clearly satirical “Pink” costume in a stage performance in Berlin. As I wrote when C.J. was charged weeks later, authorities claim that through the use of the mask image, C.J. was “disseminating propaganda, the contents of which are intended to further the aims of a former National Socialist organization.”

Mein Kampf was not banned, it was an intellectual property like any other. It became public domain, because copyright expired.