And just like in the USA, that does not make it absolute. The exact interpretation and limitations are different, but saying saying that Germany does not have freedom of speech is disrespectful and incorrect.

Try saying the same about Merz

You can criticise Merz's hairstyle, his politics, and his small hands all you like though.

Ofcourse we can say a lot, but our speach is far from free. Volksverhetzung is another thing. Say the wrong thing about some groups and your in trouble. And im not necessarily saying its a bad thing that this exists. But we shouldnt pretend like our speach is free

in my opinion the problem with germans speech laws are not the limitations, but the risk of misinterpretation and the resulting uncertainty on border cases whose outcome depends on the opinion of prosecution and judges.

[0] https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_st...

If the government can arbitrarily designate groups it doesn't like as terrorists and restrict your freedom based on that, then there isn't free speech.

"Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea."[0]

[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20170510123932/http://hamas.ps/e...

Also, there is no free speech in Germany. There is freedom of opinion and expression thereof. I'm not an advocate of that, but it's also not arbitrary.

And I am glad we agree there is no free speech. "freedom of opinion and expression" without the freedom to speak may as well be a joke. And I wouldn't be surprised if they arrested people for doing interpretive dance in support of Palestinians.

Also, the swastika predates the NSDAP by millennia. It's still not allowed to use it in a context where it means "death to all Jews". Same is true for the slogan "from the river to the sea".

Freedom of speech, like it exists in the US is called "Redefreiheit", but Germany has "Meinungsfreiheit", which is not the same. Redefreiheit means you can say anything you want. This is not the case in Germany. Meinungsfreiheit means, you can think whatever you want, but not say whatever you want.

Even in the article of the Grundgesetz you listed, it's stated:

> (2) These rights shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons and in the right to personal honour.

Or in other words: your freedom of expression ends, when you're expressing something that is deemed illegal by the law.

on the other hand, in germany unlike the US, even private entities can not limit your freedom of expression as long as it is legal (and not disruptive).

The constitution that you are governed by includes all of the judgements that have been made.

in other words, the constitution is defined by its practical application.

So saying "the US has free speech" does not mean "we have the first amendment". It means we have a long culture of judgements that have established free speech as a fundamental right.

It's shocking how many people in the USA don't understand how their country and laws are designed to work.

    "AfD member xxx writes and forwards racist dehumanizing incitement:.

    (source text not published for this record)

> Rendering them as individual pages would mean publishing an indexed, searchable copy of every private message in the corpus — including the many that concern ordinary members and people who wrote to the party, not public figures.

which is suspicious

It's their report, their claims, their argument. The burden to make the case and be transparent is theirs, not mine. It's dishonest to present AI summaries as facts.

There should be at least a sample of the source text so we can see how well the descriptions match the sources.

Also, where is the prompt, the model? The methods used to present the content.

It's funny how much critique of "AI slop" is on HN, and here's a case where even mild hallucination is very misleading, yet the bar is incredibly low.

Look dude, maybe this is your project , so you're defensive.

I saw the tag line, visited and thought "ooh some spicy emails that'll be interesting. ".

Then i found a bunch of AI slop, with no grounding.

That's all it is.

I would read a non AI generated article from a (hopefully unbiased) legitimate source. Hopefully providing some nuance that the world including HN lacks lately.

https://www.dw.com/en/germany-news-hackers-release-afd-party...

“I refuse to and I’m still going to complain.”

The documents have been provided.

If you don’t believe it go and download the documents and grep through them. You act like 300gb is large. It’s not. The next FPS will probably be that big.

- source that approximately nobody will follow up with

This has been a common journalist tactic to report the opposite of the truth.

Am I the only one who bothered to download the torrent and check?

So much intellectual laziness, if I may be blunt. All of you who replied to me. The link was there. I didn't have time last night. But I do now. And the torrent appears to be genuine.

Journalists have reached the same conclusion, and the AfD spokesperson seems to have admitted at least some of them are genuine.

https://www.dw.com/en/germany-news-hackers-release-afd-party...

https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/germanys-far-right-...

https://github.com/marioco/AfDLeakercatcher

Website screams AI slop though.

That’s old news [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pac...

"In August of that year [1939], the countries expanded their economic relationship by entering into a Trade and Credit agreement whereby the Soviet Union sent critical raw materials to Germany in exchange for weapons, military technology and civilian machinery. That deal accompanied the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, which contained secret protocols dividing central Europe between them, after which both Nazi forces and Soviet forces invaded territories listed within their 'spheres of influence'."

https://harpers.org/archive/1941/08/who-goes-nazi/

The reality is the NSDAP had no ideological grounding whichever way. All their public policies were exclusively to get elected. They were populists, nothing else. Within the Nazi party it was as pure a dictatorship as was possible: there were no political discussions happening there. There was a clear order and members owed alegiance to people "above" them and could do whatever they wanted to people "below" them.

Just about the only thing they DID discuss was what made specific people fall above or below others. There was more than a page of rules about which family constituents made people "untermensch". What about 1 Jewish ancestor? What about 5 ancestors with unknown affiliations? What about a nephew that became communist? What about a grandfather who was NSDAP member but had a Jewish/communist/immigrant mistress? What about ...

point is, these phrases and names seem to have different connotations in different times.

eta: I realize arguing with bots and paid farms is to do a disservice to everyone, but it's just painful to see these bad faith arguments presented as 8th grade reading level trick-questions. That said, fucking vote. It's your democratic responsibility in society that is based on social governance.

> "Why," I asked Hitler, "do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party programme is the very antithesis of that commonly accredited to socialism?"

> "Socialism," he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, pugnaciously, "is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.

> "Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic.

> "We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one."

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2007/sep/17/greatint...

the namings are just messy.

My point was that terminology can be overloaded in contradictory ways; it's been clarified multiple times above that such is the point, including in my original comment's short last sentence.

If that phrase were evaluated in the US in 2026, would that be "far left"?

I ask because it seems these phrases and coordinate systems are just an inconsistent clickbait mess.

> "Why," I asked Hitler, "do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party programme is the very antithesis of that commonly accredited to socialism?"

> "Socialism," he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, pugnaciously, "is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.

> "Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic.

> "We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one."

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2007/sep/17/greatint...

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jacobus_Belsen_-_Das...

That's 95 years ago, how have we not internalized that things named by bad people don't usually do what the name says?

Seems to me the Jews are still very much target #1, not-further-specified migrants #2 and with black people a clear #3 (strange to see that in Germany), and while it mentions muslims, there's 10 hate slurs against Jews for every 1 mention of muslims.

Oh, and the first mention of muslims seems to be encouragement of Palestinian shall we say "actions against Jews" in like the 7th mail here. But yes, it does get quite negative after that.

But yes, after that it does go quite negative.

The socialism part was fake in the sense that Nazis were populists, they promised whatever would convince large amounts of voters, and of course weren't anything remotely like convinced socialists. But it goes much further than that. They were purely after power, right down to the personal level, and that went pretty damn deep in the Nazi party. In other words: they believed in essentially none of their standpoints and you could argue they don't belong to any side of the spectrum (nor did they care about any kind of academic or economic classification of their standpoints). And so if you look at the fake standpoints, the promises they never intended to keep, those are socialist promises. They implemented a lot of them too, which is were more confusion comes from.

But they were hardly the only party that could be credibly accused of openly lying about the standpoints they personally hold, and those parties are all around the spectrum. And the people who were convinced ... that didn't help either. The KPD very much openly expressed support for the Red Terror at the time of Nazis, that is not a lie, and probably really was a big reason for voters to vote for the Nazi party.

Today AfD, die Linke and DKP have all 3 been very obviously caught receiving Kremlin aid and very publicly supporting Russia, AfD leader Alice Weidel recently even going to far as indirectly defending Russia's attack on Ukraine:

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/hzb8aSMDwag

But ...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/19/germanys-die-l...

(at least in die Linke, you can say that it's the dominant faction that supports Russia, while clearly there is very vocal opposition against them in the same party. In AfD, the members clearly don't care. Almost like most AfD votes are protest votes rather than AfD votes)

Something similar is happening in Austria. Every extremist party is supporting the Kremlin.

Don't judge people by what they say but by what they do, goes the saying. Pay even less attention to what they call themselves.

The issue of sites like this is their one-sided nature. If they are going to be fair then they should dump the archives of all the other parties, then AfD supporters will not be able to claim that they are being set upon.

Acts like these have the ability to create sympathy and dislike in equal measure for their targets.

Are you saying that outing racists is one-sided and will create sympathy for them?

This is a man who openly stated that you could grab women by the crotch yet won the votes of a significant amount of women, twice.

If you have any intelligence you will never underestimate right-wingers sense of victimhood, grievance and feeling that they are the poor, oppressed, ignored downtrodden people who need to rise and fight against "The Powers That Be" and the sympathy that engenders in others.

If these "hexane.cc" guys have any sense they should do the same for the other parties, who I'm sure have documents and communications that will be as equally embarrassing and let the voters judge.

> never underestimate right-wingers sense of victimhood

Exactly, the right will play victim anyway. Not calling them out or even saying "well, other people are racist too" is arguing on their terms. Looking for racism among other parties to capitulate to the right is not an effective use of our time.

Why did they do that? Some might have an aversion to politics in general. That has long been a strong strain here, with people seeing it as diluting the tech focus.

But for a lot, it's clearly more sinister. There has been a lot of partiality in tech recently to plainly fascist and other ultra-right-wing ideas, especially among the executives and capital. They like it, and want it to win, everywhere, and will reflexively do what they can to help it, including burying bad coverage.

For a second, I thought this is Dangs / HN official view now lol

This site is owned by far-right aligned people and they censor everything that makes them look bad.

Post a fact about how bad is the far right, including the current US administration, and it will be flagged.

Post a fake news about how good is the far right, including the current US administration, and it will be right on the front page, no matter how much you downvote or flag.

    Warning
    Suspected Phishing
    This website has been reported for potential phishing.

But then I often see this for any source:

    (source text not published for this record)

    SUPPORT THIS ARCHIVE — MONERO
    <and probbaly a monero address>

So I think [flagged] for this source/post is rightly served, one way or the other.

What a disgrace.

magnet:?xt=urn:btih:852795102149749ad91123af01ceac5da6f9eb5a&dn=hexane-corpus-tar&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.opentrackr.org%3A1337%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Fopen.demonii.com%3A1337%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.torrent.eu.org%3A451%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Fexodus.desync.com%3A6969%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.openbittorrent.com%3A6969%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Fopen.stealth.si%3A80%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Fexplodie.org%3A6969%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.dler.org%3A6969%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.bittor.pw%3A1337%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Fretracker01-msk-virt.corbina.net%3A80%2Fannounce

https://github.com/marioco/AfDLeakercatcher