A noteworthy element of this case is its meta level. There is an argument here that the state tries to silence critique of the government by (ab)using the penal code. By doing so the state would actually confirm that the critique is correct (ideological conformity). I don't see how the state can "win" this case from an ethical standpoint.
The exemption does not only relate to art. It reads:
"Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not apply if the act serves civic education, defence against unconstitutional endeavours, art or science, research or teaching, reporting on current events or history or similar purposes."
So it pretty much depends on the entire context of the use of the symbol. There is no offence if the use of the symbol is not meant and cannot be mistaken to mean supporting an unconstitutional organisation, but clearly expresses opposition to that organisation.
But does the tweet (or the book cover for that matter) actually fulfil that exemption you quoted? I read that exemption to only apply if using such a symbol is reasonable. So if I want to educate the public about the current agricultural policy of the government and use a swastika next to a picture of the chancellor to do it, I wouldn’t expect this defence to work.
I also disagree with you last point. I don’t think the book cover in question makes it clear that it expresses opposition to the Nazi state. Equating mask mandates with Nazi policy doesn’t per se make it clear that you aren’t sympathising with the Nazi state. The context might, but the picture in question doesn’t. Especially since there were was a lot of press at the time (justified or not) made of the fact that right wing, even neo-Nazi adjacent people were critical of the same policies.
I agree with you, and I think I made that clear everywhere I wrote about this, that this isn’t something the state should do. But that isn’t how a state prosecutor thinks (or even should think). That isn’t their job. Their job is to interpret the law pretty narrowly and indict people. The court is another matter, but I don’t think an Amtsgericht sees it as their job to decide state policy either (as is also evidenced by their first decision). This will probably need to reach the Constitutional Court before a general policy issue like that is considered thoroughly.
In any case, all I said is that given the history of court decisions in Germany in this matter, this decision is hardly surprising so we shouldn’t act like it is. I am fine with criticising the decision, just don’t pretend it’s a new stance by German courts otherwise somehow unexpected.
Your argument is quite similar to a decision of a Bavarian court from December. I think it is a weak argument. It should not matter what an individual court considers reasonable. So far, we are allowed to express unreasonable opinions.
But you are right that the outcome is not unexpected.
I think we shouldn't outlaw symbols alone. It's stupid. It doesn't accomplish anything. Let us be unreasonable. Let us be offensive. And then concentrate on indicting people who are **actually** hurting democracy. Matt Taibbi said something on his podcast recently that was very smart: "The way to fight [neo-]Nazis is more free speech, not less."
His writing is educational and is indeed a work of art. The use of the swastika on a mask is certainly a form of art as it is clearly being used to express how the German government along with governments around the world used the mask as a symbol of compliance and acceptance of the official covid narrative.
Your entire substack article is about judging CJ's use of the swastika on his book cover and his corresponding tweet to bring awareness to the global totalitarian regime, but for some reason you say that you can't judge whether his efforts should be classified as civic education or the defence against anti-constitutional efforts?
How does that make any sense? It sounds like you disagree that the German government along with other governments around the world didn't behave like the fourth Reich with how they treated their own citizens. If that is the case, then you need to wake up to the fascism that happened and continues to happen.
You can be of the opinion that something is art or educational all day long. That doesn't mean a court will agree. And if you think that this kind of prosecution is somehow a novel thing in Germany, you are also deluding yourself. THAT is what my article was about.
Maybe you need to read my text again. I haven't judged whether his use of the swastika in this case is legal. Because I am not a judge. That is the reason I can't judge this. I AM NOT A LEGAL EXPERT. All I have done is provide some context to this prosecution about laws that have existed, and haven been quite consistently interpreted and enforced, for about 70 years.
Then I added my personal opinion about why I think this book cover and these tweets are what they are. Why would you object to that? You can disagree, just as I did with your opinion. Fair enough. I also think that from your comment it is quite evident that you only have a very lose idea of what the term "fascism" means or what living in Nazi Germany was about. So where does that leave us? In short: I really have no idea what your comment even accomplishes aside from venting random dissatisfaction with someone not agreeing with your point of view.
Your article wasn't about the courts agreeing whether CJ's work is art and/or educational. That is very clear to anyone that has read CJ's material. One doesn't have to be a judge or a legal expert to judge whether his book and corresponding tweet are a work of art and/or education. Do not delude yourself and others into thinking that they have to be a part of the aristocracy to understand what is right in front of us.
I have a very clear understanding of what fascism is and what living under Nazi Germany was really about because we have been living in it for years now. The process has just accelerated. The real question is, what is the real point of this article? Sum it up for us in two sentences please.
No shit, Fabian. This is the risk that all truth tellers face for calling out the authoritarians for what they are. Are you suggesting that we stop fighting the psychopaths in power?
I am not sure that's actually a career. And, speaking as someone who has invested quite a bit into reading communication theory textbooks, not everything you *send* as satire will also be *received* as such. I'd go so far as suggesting that thinking a court would see *anything* as satire without significant convincing on your part would be quite stupid.
CJ is great. A tad arrogant, and often a little pissy but from all i can see, a sincere, authentic voice in a time of cholera. Give the guy a break. He’s earned it.
I think I have given the guy more breaks than almost any other person in my position would have. Germans don't usually react well to baselessly being called fascists. And one could argue that being called a parasite is actually something right out of Goebbels' playbook, if we are on the Nazi analogy train now. Yeah, you can go and call that satire after the fact, but to me that's just a cowardly way of not owning what you've said. It cheapens anything else you say.
I don't really care who the guy is and what he's done. I am not writing for him. I'm writing for the public and no matter how great a writer he is, he seems to be an abysmal judge of the laws of the land over here. If it was only affecting him, I wouldn't care. But when he's getting Matt Taibbi to write about this stuff, someone needs to put things in a rational perspective, I feel. Especially since he actually has a point and he's hurting it big time with this nonsense.
Just fucking own that you wanted to be crass. If he's not completely dumb, he must have at least guessed that this could happen. Alright, then take it on the chin and concentrate on why these laws are crap, not on being personally insulted that they apply to you as much as anyone else.
C.J. Hopkins's story is insane, and your text about him and the Swastika is, as one would expect from you, great and deep. Your objectivity, while puzzling to me, is a refreshing touch of a true journalist. I recall our most sincere, tolerant exchange over a topic we disagreed about, a while ago.
That conversation kept me optimistic for at least 24 hours—a smiley here. In the meantime, I published 'As America Crumbles...: A Grim Chronicle Exploring the Evil Source of America’s Catastrophic Decline' book (https://www.amazon.de/dp/B0CQP8NBTX/). Given that Germany is often in our alt-media (Nord Stream destruction without a peep of protest from the German goverment, siding with Israel against South Africa's case in The Hague, green energy transition, and what many of us consider insane military support for Ukraine so German armaments can start killing Russians again), I sent a jovial email to my Berliner friends.
You know the type—exceptionally intelligent, highly educated with that biting sense of humor that the Berliners are known for. I told them, clearly joking, how I might go back to Berlin to write 'As Germany Crumbles...: A Grim Chronicle Exploring the Evil Source of Germany’s Catastrophic Decline.'
Not a single one replied. That's the first time my friends in Berlin ignored my email. Now I really want to go back.
A further crucial complication for CJ is that he posted the tweets via his Consent Factory account rather than under his individual authoric name. I tried to engage with CJ to suggest ways he might overcome this problem but got branded all sorts of names, blocked and derided on Twitter. At the time I was a paid subscriber and attender of speaker events, even allowing him to reuse pictures I had taken. He claims he needs some many thousands of dollars to defend himself but the uptake is a damp squib so far. I have come to the conclusion that far from being a satirist he's another loudmouth yank who can't follow his adopted nations culture.
Well done, for staying calm and writing a considered response to CJ Hopkins - remember this whole affair must be very stressful!
Note, the book "Adolf in Wonderland" by Carlton Mellick III is clearly a satirical/absurdist novel. And CJ Hopkins is clearly a professional satirist with a long body of work to attest to the fact.
Your points on the case precedents in Germany are important, it seems this case will hinge on the argument that it was intended as satire and, as you point out, whether a judge will deem the use of a swastika satirical and justified in this context - darf die Satire alles?
I expect the court will decide against Hopkins as to do otherwise could open the door to use of nazi imagery by other critics of government policy requiring frequent decisions (by whom? - state prosecutors/police/courts) to judge whether something is satirically intended or not. Although many of the parallels drawn between 1930's public health policies and 2020's are very legitimate.
The bigger context is the creepy nature of the way Hopkins tweets were brought to the attention of the authorities and of internet platforms and that the state prosecutor is going after him on this. That Hopkins is also clearly against nazism just makes the prosecution even more cynical.
It is great that you will travel to Berlin to report on the case (I would if I could!) and I hope you will get a chance to talk to him in person.
I mean I get that it would be stressful. But if stress gets you to be that way, maybe you need a new job or something, I don't know.
I haven't read "Adolf in Wonderland", so I'll have to take your word for it. There isn't actually that much out there on it and I didn't come across anything that strongly suggested that. I am prepared to admit that I am wrong there.
The core problem remains, though: Convincing a court of the satire defence will be quite hard. In my experience, the bar for that is quite high. And that "professional satirist" isn't exactly a recognised job description over here would make me think that it counts for very little. In the Böhmermann case the courts, as far as I am aware, also didn't care so much about who was being prosecuted. It was much more about why. Just being satirical a lot doesn't mean it'll get you off a serious prosecution under criminal law, I'd think. It's not like being part of the press, where there are a lot of rules and conventions that have been accepted by courts over decades to decide when someone is actually acting in the best interest of the public. Or trying to do so.
I also expect the court will rule against him. But mostly because of the venue. Lower courts like this are much more concerned with finding the right balance for sentencing someone than deciding whether the law actually was interpreted correctly in every nuance. I'd expect his chances go up on the way to the Constitutional Court.
I have no idea how the tweets were brought to the attention of the authorities. And why would it matter? The prosecutor HAS to go after this. That is literally their job. The police has to investigate and, in an overwhelming amount of cases, the state prosecutor HAS to prosecute. That is how the criminal law system works in this country. It's an integral part of the judiciary and thus democracy. Yes, it sucks sometimes, but that is exactly why you need the press at these cases to keep prosecution that is actually against the interest of the people in check.
Not sure he wants to talk to me. I'd be up for it, though. Thanks for being considerate and leaving well thought-out thoughts here!
Those swastikas Hopkins used "don't sound like satire?" The satire is as loud and bright as the swastikas you posted in your example of what you say German law says is appropriate.
An Irishman once told me that Germans had no sense of satire. Perhaps he was correct.
German courts certainly don’t have a sense of humour, I can tell you that. I am obviously not a lawyer, but even to me it’s pretty clear that the satire defence is often a very shaky one when it comes to criminal court. No matter what Jan Böhmermann claims to have achieved...
It might be satire. Who am I to judge? I certainly never wrote about any satirical works. “Das Boot” is anything but and the book covers I got from Taibbi’s article aren’t for satirical works either, as far as I am aware. So I don’t known what you are referring to when it comes to my writing.
A noteworthy element of this case is its meta level. There is an argument here that the state tries to silence critique of the government by (ab)using the penal code. By doing so the state would actually confirm that the critique is correct (ideological conformity). I don't see how the state can "win" this case from an ethical standpoint.
The exemption does not only relate to art. It reads:
"Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not apply if the act serves civic education, defence against unconstitutional endeavours, art or science, research or teaching, reporting on current events or history or similar purposes."
So it pretty much depends on the entire context of the use of the symbol. There is no offence if the use of the symbol is not meant and cannot be mistaken to mean supporting an unconstitutional organisation, but clearly expresses opposition to that organisation.
But does the tweet (or the book cover for that matter) actually fulfil that exemption you quoted? I read that exemption to only apply if using such a symbol is reasonable. So if I want to educate the public about the current agricultural policy of the government and use a swastika next to a picture of the chancellor to do it, I wouldn’t expect this defence to work.
I also disagree with you last point. I don’t think the book cover in question makes it clear that it expresses opposition to the Nazi state. Equating mask mandates with Nazi policy doesn’t per se make it clear that you aren’t sympathising with the Nazi state. The context might, but the picture in question doesn’t. Especially since there were was a lot of press at the time (justified or not) made of the fact that right wing, even neo-Nazi adjacent people were critical of the same policies.
I agree with you, and I think I made that clear everywhere I wrote about this, that this isn’t something the state should do. But that isn’t how a state prosecutor thinks (or even should think). That isn’t their job. Their job is to interpret the law pretty narrowly and indict people. The court is another matter, but I don’t think an Amtsgericht sees it as their job to decide state policy either (as is also evidenced by their first decision). This will probably need to reach the Constitutional Court before a general policy issue like that is considered thoroughly.
In any case, all I said is that given the history of court decisions in Germany in this matter, this decision is hardly surprising so we shouldn’t act like it is. I am fine with criticising the decision, just don’t pretend it’s a new stance by German courts otherwise somehow unexpected.
Your argument is quite similar to a decision of a Bavarian court from December. I think it is a weak argument. It should not matter what an individual court considers reasonable. So far, we are allowed to express unreasonable opinions.
But you are right that the outcome is not unexpected.
I think we shouldn't outlaw symbols alone. It's stupid. It doesn't accomplish anything. Let us be unreasonable. Let us be offensive. And then concentrate on indicting people who are **actually** hurting democracy. Matt Taibbi said something on his podcast recently that was very smart: "The way to fight [neo-]Nazis is more free speech, not less."
Nice T4 btw 👌
Thanks! I love that car!
His writing is educational and is indeed a work of art. The use of the swastika on a mask is certainly a form of art as it is clearly being used to express how the German government along with governments around the world used the mask as a symbol of compliance and acceptance of the official covid narrative.
Your entire substack article is about judging CJ's use of the swastika on his book cover and his corresponding tweet to bring awareness to the global totalitarian regime, but for some reason you say that you can't judge whether his efforts should be classified as civic education or the defence against anti-constitutional efforts?
How does that make any sense? It sounds like you disagree that the German government along with other governments around the world didn't behave like the fourth Reich with how they treated their own citizens. If that is the case, then you need to wake up to the fascism that happened and continues to happen.
You can be of the opinion that something is art or educational all day long. That doesn't mean a court will agree. And if you think that this kind of prosecution is somehow a novel thing in Germany, you are also deluding yourself. THAT is what my article was about.
Maybe you need to read my text again. I haven't judged whether his use of the swastika in this case is legal. Because I am not a judge. That is the reason I can't judge this. I AM NOT A LEGAL EXPERT. All I have done is provide some context to this prosecution about laws that have existed, and haven been quite consistently interpreted and enforced, for about 70 years.
Then I added my personal opinion about why I think this book cover and these tweets are what they are. Why would you object to that? You can disagree, just as I did with your opinion. Fair enough. I also think that from your comment it is quite evident that you only have a very lose idea of what the term "fascism" means or what living in Nazi Germany was about. So where does that leave us? In short: I really have no idea what your comment even accomplishes aside from venting random dissatisfaction with someone not agreeing with your point of view.
Your article wasn't about the courts agreeing whether CJ's work is art and/or educational. That is very clear to anyone that has read CJ's material. One doesn't have to be a judge or a legal expert to judge whether his book and corresponding tweet are a work of art and/or education. Do not delude yourself and others into thinking that they have to be a part of the aristocracy to understand what is right in front of us.
I have a very clear understanding of what fascism is and what living under Nazi Germany was really about because we have been living in it for years now. The process has just accelerated. The real question is, what is the real point of this article? Sum it up for us in two sentences please.
My original note: If you piss into the wind, don't be surprised if you get yourself wet.
This article: Don't be like that guy.
No shit, Fabian. This is the risk that all truth tellers face for calling out the authoritarians for what they are. Are you suggesting that we stop fighting the psychopaths in power?
CJ is literally a career satirist. Everything he writes is satire.
I am not sure that's actually a career. And, speaking as someone who has invested quite a bit into reading communication theory textbooks, not everything you *send* as satire will also be *received* as such. I'd go so far as suggesting that thinking a court would see *anything* as satire without significant convincing on your part would be quite stupid.
What I think you’re saying is, the courts are biased and are on a vendetta?
Bring a writer is most certainly a career. Satirical writer is certainly a genre of being a writer.
CJ is great. A tad arrogant, and often a little pissy but from all i can see, a sincere, authentic voice in a time of cholera. Give the guy a break. He’s earned it.
I think I have given the guy more breaks than almost any other person in my position would have. Germans don't usually react well to baselessly being called fascists. And one could argue that being called a parasite is actually something right out of Goebbels' playbook, if we are on the Nazi analogy train now. Yeah, you can go and call that satire after the fact, but to me that's just a cowardly way of not owning what you've said. It cheapens anything else you say.
I don't really care who the guy is and what he's done. I am not writing for him. I'm writing for the public and no matter how great a writer he is, he seems to be an abysmal judge of the laws of the land over here. If it was only affecting him, I wouldn't care. But when he's getting Matt Taibbi to write about this stuff, someone needs to put things in a rational perspective, I feel. Especially since he actually has a point and he's hurting it big time with this nonsense.
Just fucking own that you wanted to be crass. If he's not completely dumb, he must have at least guessed that this could happen. Alright, then take it on the chin and concentrate on why these laws are crap, not on being personally insulted that they apply to you as much as anyone else.
Carry on then my friend. CJ isn’t relying on me for his defense. I’ll only add he ain’t the enemy here. Cheers.
C.J. Hopkins's story is insane, and your text about him and the Swastika is, as one would expect from you, great and deep. Your objectivity, while puzzling to me, is a refreshing touch of a true journalist. I recall our most sincere, tolerant exchange over a topic we disagreed about, a while ago.
That conversation kept me optimistic for at least 24 hours—a smiley here. In the meantime, I published 'As America Crumbles...: A Grim Chronicle Exploring the Evil Source of America’s Catastrophic Decline' book (https://www.amazon.de/dp/B0CQP8NBTX/). Given that Germany is often in our alt-media (Nord Stream destruction without a peep of protest from the German goverment, siding with Israel against South Africa's case in The Hague, green energy transition, and what many of us consider insane military support for Ukraine so German armaments can start killing Russians again), I sent a jovial email to my Berliner friends.
You know the type—exceptionally intelligent, highly educated with that biting sense of humor that the Berliners are known for. I told them, clearly joking, how I might go back to Berlin to write 'As Germany Crumbles...: A Grim Chronicle Exploring the Evil Source of Germany’s Catastrophic Decline.'
Not a single one replied. That's the first time my friends in Berlin ignored my email. Now I really want to go back.
A further crucial complication for CJ is that he posted the tweets via his Consent Factory account rather than under his individual authoric name. I tried to engage with CJ to suggest ways he might overcome this problem but got branded all sorts of names, blocked and derided on Twitter. At the time I was a paid subscriber and attender of speaker events, even allowing him to reuse pictures I had taken. He claims he needs some many thousands of dollars to defend himself but the uptake is a damp squib so far. I have come to the conclusion that far from being a satirist he's another loudmouth yank who can't follow his adopted nations culture.
Hi Fabian,
Well done, for staying calm and writing a considered response to CJ Hopkins - remember this whole affair must be very stressful!
Note, the book "Adolf in Wonderland" by Carlton Mellick III is clearly a satirical/absurdist novel. And CJ Hopkins is clearly a professional satirist with a long body of work to attest to the fact.
Your points on the case precedents in Germany are important, it seems this case will hinge on the argument that it was intended as satire and, as you point out, whether a judge will deem the use of a swastika satirical and justified in this context - darf die Satire alles?
I expect the court will decide against Hopkins as to do otherwise could open the door to use of nazi imagery by other critics of government policy requiring frequent decisions (by whom? - state prosecutors/police/courts) to judge whether something is satirically intended or not. Although many of the parallels drawn between 1930's public health policies and 2020's are very legitimate.
The bigger context is the creepy nature of the way Hopkins tweets were brought to the attention of the authorities and of internet platforms and that the state prosecutor is going after him on this. That Hopkins is also clearly against nazism just makes the prosecution even more cynical.
It is great that you will travel to Berlin to report on the case (I would if I could!) and I hope you will get a chance to talk to him in person.
I mean I get that it would be stressful. But if stress gets you to be that way, maybe you need a new job or something, I don't know.
I haven't read "Adolf in Wonderland", so I'll have to take your word for it. There isn't actually that much out there on it and I didn't come across anything that strongly suggested that. I am prepared to admit that I am wrong there.
The core problem remains, though: Convincing a court of the satire defence will be quite hard. In my experience, the bar for that is quite high. And that "professional satirist" isn't exactly a recognised job description over here would make me think that it counts for very little. In the Böhmermann case the courts, as far as I am aware, also didn't care so much about who was being prosecuted. It was much more about why. Just being satirical a lot doesn't mean it'll get you off a serious prosecution under criminal law, I'd think. It's not like being part of the press, where there are a lot of rules and conventions that have been accepted by courts over decades to decide when someone is actually acting in the best interest of the public. Or trying to do so.
I also expect the court will rule against him. But mostly because of the venue. Lower courts like this are much more concerned with finding the right balance for sentencing someone than deciding whether the law actually was interpreted correctly in every nuance. I'd expect his chances go up on the way to the Constitutional Court.
I have no idea how the tweets were brought to the attention of the authorities. And why would it matter? The prosecutor HAS to go after this. That is literally their job. The police has to investigate and, in an overwhelming amount of cases, the state prosecutor HAS to prosecute. That is how the criminal law system works in this country. It's an integral part of the judiciary and thus democracy. Yes, it sucks sometimes, but that is exactly why you need the press at these cases to keep prosecution that is actually against the interest of the people in check.
Not sure he wants to talk to me. I'd be up for it, though. Thanks for being considerate and leaving well thought-out thoughts here!
Those swastikas Hopkins used "don't sound like satire?" The satire is as loud and bright as the swastikas you posted in your example of what you say German law says is appropriate.
An Irishman once told me that Germans had no sense of satire. Perhaps he was correct.
German courts certainly don’t have a sense of humour, I can tell you that. I am obviously not a lawyer, but even to me it’s pretty clear that the satire defence is often a very shaky one when it comes to criminal court. No matter what Jan Böhmermann claims to have achieved...
It might be satire. Who am I to judge? I certainly never wrote about any satirical works. “Das Boot” is anything but and the book covers I got from Taibbi’s article aren’t for satirical works either, as far as I am aware. So I don’t known what you are referring to when it comes to my writing.