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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Nice T4 btw 👌
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.
CJ is literally a career satirist. Everything he writes is satire.
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.
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.
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.