Right. But the main reason for the ban is that it would be an insult to all who suffered under the Nazi reign if we would allow its symbols to be used again and the irrevocably debunked holocaust denials to be spread. It’s in our foremost national interest to prevent this from happening.

“Freedom of speech is a right that must be especially defended in the case of unpopular speech.” sounds good, but in practice, ‘freedom of speech’ has limits. There are laws prohibiting libel and slander, even in the US. And not the free speech of Nazis in general is banned, only the use of Nazi symbols and the public denegation of the holocaust. These are very minor limits that don’t prevent right wing extremists from publicly spreading their idiotic ideas.

I approve those german laws. They are reasonable and necessary.

Can we clarify that one can (and should!) believe that praising Hitler both should not be barred by law, and also that it’s anti-Semitic and should be condemned?

What if you really liked his mustache? Is that anti-semitic?

I’m still against the bad

that’s against the BAN.

Pls note it was Luxembourg who started the first initiative in this direction, ok? However, while I support the laws of Germany and Austria in this regard because of our historical liability, imho a european ban would go to far. A limit on the right of free speech can only be outweighed by a special obligation to do everything to prevent a revival of the shameful ideology of the past. Other european countries don’t bear this obligation, it would be wrong to limit human rights there because of genuine german and austrian liabilities.