Germany Raids, Shuts Down Far Left Website. Will You Stop Praising European Censorship Now?
This is about punishing people the government says are disruptive, not fighting bigotry.

First they came for the Nazis, and everybody cheered, because to hell with Nazis! We hate Nazis!
But today the German authorities came for a far-left website, shutting it down and raiding organizers' homes.
German authorities say this site was used to help foment violent protests at the G20 summit in Hamburg in July, where thousands of leftists marched and some black-clad individuals clashed with police. Dozens were reportedly injured in the frays.
Each side blamed the other for the violence, according to The New York Times. But only one side has the power of government authority at their disposal. Much as they've done recently with far right websites, German authorities have used the argument that this leftist site that they're shutting down is instigating violence. The Times reports:
Linksunten.indymedia, founded in 2008, billed itself as "a weapon in the social struggle" and said it was a "decentrally organized global network of social movements." The ministry was able to move against the website because it viewed those running it as an "association," and under German law, those can be blocked for extremist activity. The platform was not accessible on Friday, and the ministry said that its goal was to shut the site permanently.
Raids in the southwestern state of Baden-Württemberg were conducted in the early hours of Friday against several leading members and supporters of the website, the ministry said in a statement.
There's nothing in the Times story that says the people they raided actually participated in any violence. But they say that the website referred to police as "pigs" and "murderers" and that activity on the site intended to "legitimize violence against police officers."
Let this be a reminder that Europe's censorship laws are not what a lot of Americans think they are. Governments use these laws to preserve public order, not necessarily to protect "enlightened" folks from bigotry.
And a lot of people here in America would cheer on the government if it tried to root out and shut down sites used by the more violent participants in the antifascist movement. Even some folks on the left would probably be relieved, given how this violence is used to dismiss their arguments and their protests entirely and to feed "both sides do it" arguments.
But let's be clear: This crackdown in Germany is awfully similar to what the Department of Justice is already doing to try to get information about people who tried to disrupt President Donald Trump's inauguration in January. The Justice Department attempted to serve a remarkably broad warrant against website company DreamHost to get information about anyone connected to disruptj20.org, including details on anybody who had even just visited the site. They pulled back to make the warrant a little less of a fishing expedition after DreamHost went public with the demand, bringing the Justice Department some negative publicity.
If President Donald Trump and his administration had the kind of authority to declare that disruptj20 was an extremist site instigating violence in order to shut it down, don't you think they'd do so in a heartbeat? Let's stop pretending that laws against "extreme" speech in European countries are a sign of enlightenment. They're fundamentally a tool for the government to shut down anything they find potentially disruptive, and they have little incentive to discern a difference between civil disobedience and violence.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
You know who else shut down dissenting views in Germany?
Kaiser Wilhelm?
Erich Honecker?
Das YouTube?
Shosanna Dreyfus?
Heidi Klum?
Germany Raids, Shuts Down Far Left Website. Will You Stop Praising European Censorship Now?
No, now is when we start praising it! Amirite guys?
Free Speech means you can say what you want, it doesn't mean that the government can't kill you for doing it?
"Free speech has consequences"
Popehat and Robby Soave told me so!
The context is generally that your Freedom of Speech protects you from government retaliation, not from social retaliation.
So say whatever the frack you want, the cops won't throw you in jail?. But if what you say turns people off and they stop patronizing your place of business, you'll go bankrupt and end up in the poor house? anyway.
________
?Ha! I made a funny! Depending on what you say, cops will totally throw you in jail. It normally won't stick, but they can drag out that time until they release you for lack of charges an awfully long time.
?Ha! Another funny. We don't really have "poor houses" anymore.
If the government hadn't done it, who would have?
"both sides do it" arguments.
If we lost that argument, we're left with nothing!
Where's that "Wants More Government" meme when you need it?
Boom.
Ouch.
I see, the entire problem is that you don't understand how a person can be for slightly higher marginal tax rates and against a police state at the same time.
If only slightly higher marginal tax rates were where it ended.
But without the police state, who will collect the taxes?
As in raise the rate for almost half the population from zero to maybe 5%?
Aaaaaand for sending the EPA to fine you 80,000$ *a day* for refusing to move a pond in your backyard.
And for forcing businesses to destroy jobs or close down in the name of a "minimum wage" (mission accomplished: wages minimized!).
And for destroying a baker's livelihood because they refused to bake a cake.
Oh, and for slightly raising marginal tax rates. Thus putting even more of the people's wealth under the control of a D.C. bureaucrat, to be redistributed to whatever well-connected rent-seeking senator's daughter that happens to have a high-speed rail boondoggle or bridge to nowhere in need of slush money that particular day.
ooof!
Where's that "Wants More Government" meme when you need it?
Whatever free speech is supposed to mean--advocating killing cops, church folks, one race or another, robbing banks and so on probably is not a good idea if a society wants to remain free and live in some semblance of law and order.
I'll take freedom over order.
I will bust a cap in order to keep my freedom.
Freedom IS Order.
Government Is Chaos.
" _not a good idea if a society wants to remain free_ "
Nothing quite like authoritarians telling you speech cannot be free in order for society to remain free. Ahhhh.
Newsflash, there's nothing orderly about Gov'ts in the world. They oppress, steal, destroy, and murder more than anything else on this earth; bar none, no comparision. It's chaos guised for idiots as "order".
The lefties are not THOSE kind of lefty group, so it's fine.
It's fine...
it's fine....
"First they came for the Nazis"
Did you find that clever?
Also who is praising Europe's censorship laws?
The Guardian.
I mean in this country.
Do you mean by explicitly saying or inferred by action-- action which might be doing the exact same thing?"
U.S. Tech Companies seem to be 100% on board.
How about Mark Zuckerberg?
Let me keep digging for more examples.
Andres Martinez?
People on Daily Kos?
Well I don't believe in censoring even though I also believe that speech can be powerfully destructive. Because I don't think it does any good unless you really commit, like North Korea.
"Because I don't think it does any good unless you really commit, like North Korea."
Hmmm, that's a rather interesting comment...
I try.
Adam Gopnik at the New Yorker?
Well that's just the Jews. (And whoever Andres Martinez is.)
Andr?s Martinez is the executive editor at Z?calo Public Square, a journalism professor at Arizona State University, and a fellow at New America.
Oh that Andres Martinez.
I will assume your deflection means you concede the point.
All authority types?
Governments use these laws to preserve public order, not necessarily to protect "enlightened" folks from bigotry.
How naiive can you get?
Let's stop pretending that laws against "extreme" speech in European countries are a sign of enlightenment.
See? Reason writes for its audience which is supposed to be stupid progtards. You cosmos will never win unless you promise to throw the fuckin' commies out of helicopters put all to the sword who do not convert to "Free Minds and Free Markets"
Maybe my meter is broken or I missed an in-joke, but...dude.
First they came for the Nazis and Shackford didn't speak up because he wasn't a Nazi. Then they came for the leftists and Shackford spoke up because he's a leftist.
Hmmm.....maybe we're on to something here.
First they came for the Nazis and SIV spoke up............
Yeah, my consistent defense of civil liberties...
The usual leftard retort for this is "it won't happen when the right people are in charge." Because authority.
I am 'the right', and a person, and it damn well will happen when I am in charge.
we just need to get the corporate money out of politics!
I'm trying to see the German website thing as bad, but I've got some schadenfreude in my eye.