Julius Streicher

[Scott Smith]

If someone stands on a street corner and starts screaming over and over, "Kill the blacks, they raped by daughter. Kill the Blacks, the raped my sister" and someone then kills a Black person, you are as guilty as the person who commited the murder.

Maybe in Europe. But in the U.S. would it not be protected speech under the First Amendment?

[Tom Houlihan]

Actually, no. Inciteful speech is not protected.

[Scott Smith]

Actually, no. Inciteful speech is not protected.

In the past that was true but I don't think it is anymore. For example, burning an American flag might be considered inciteful but it is protected.

[michael mills]

Xanthro wrote:

When the level of pornographic rantings rise to the level to induce violence, then you are guilty.

Guilty of what? Incitement to violence perhaps, but that is quite a different matter from conspiring to commit acts of violence, or procuring acts of violence.

Remember that Streicher was convicted for Crimes against Humanity, and thus condemned to death (since the Western judges had agreed informally that only a conviction on that count would incur the death penalty), on the rather dubious grounds that his anti-Semitic propaganda constituted persecution. The court did not even try to prove any causal connection between his propaganda and the actual acts of mass violence committed against the Jews.

The whole argument is so completed inane it defies belief. You wouldn't be making such an unsupportable absolute freedom of speech argument if the victims were other than Jew.

This is paranoid nonsense. I specifically drew a parallel with the illegal killing of doctors who perform abortions by persons incited by the violently hostile words uttered by anti-abortion campaigners. I noted that the persons who uttered those violently hostile words had not been prosecuted as accomplices or conspirators, and concluded that under the law there was not a sufficient causal relationship between those words and the violent acts to constitute conspiracy or procurement of an illegal act. I reasoned that the same legal consideration should apply to Streicher's violently hostile words. I did not call for the prosecution of the anti-abortion campaigners for conspiracy or procurement of murder (although I would consider it just to prosecute them for incitement) despite the fact that the victims were not Jews (some of the doctors killed may have been Jewish, but that is not relevant to the issue).

I think the shoe is actually on the other foot. I think it highly likely that Xanthro would not call for the death penalty for someone who made violently hostile propaganda against persons who were not Jewish. I would be fairly certain that he would not call for the death penalty for a Jew who habitually incited the killing of Arabs.

If someone stands on a street corner and starts screaming over and over, "Kill the blacks, they raped by daughter. Kill the Blacks, the raped my sister" and someone then kills a Black person, you are as guilty as the person who commited the murder.

No, the person shouting on the street corner is not guilty of the same crime as the person who commits the murder. If a person hears the cry "Kill the blacks, they raped my daughter", and then goes out and murders a black person, the law takes the view that that person formed an independent decision to carry out the act of murder, and was not compelled by what he had heard. The law might also take the view that the person who uttered the cry was guilty of incitement, but it would not hold that person guilty of having conspired to commit murder or suborned others to commit murder.

It would be a different matter if a person went to another person, or group of others, in secret and said, "My daughter was raped by blacks, I want you to take revenge for me by killing some blacks, wherever you can find them". In that case the law would take the view that the first person had directly suborned others to commit murder, and therefore was guilty of conspiracy to murder and/or of being an accomplice to murder.

[michael mills]

Further to my previous message, I have not argued that Streicher should not have been tried at all.

I have argued that it was ridiculous to put Streicher on trial with men who had been the senior leaders of the National Socialist government of Germany, who had been ministers, who had made the policy decisions, or with men who had been senior implementers of German government decisions, given that he had been stripped of all his administrative posts before the outbreak of war, and had not been in a position of power where he could have made decisions affecting Jews, or could have taken action against Jews.

Streicher's position as a member of the Reichstag is irrelevant, as the Reichstag had no power whatsoever. His newspaper, "Der Stuermer", was privately owned by him and was not an NSDAP organ, although obviously it had the approval of the Party, as did every publication in Germany that was not prohibited. Streicher did not have much influence during the war, if any, since all the men in real positions of power regarded him as a totally disreputable character avoided by polite society.

The decision to put him on trial as a "Major War Criminal" was a total travesty, since he was not a war criminal of any magnitude. At most he was guilty of civil offences.

It is noteworthy that Streicher was the only defendant arraigned for crimes specifically and only against Jews. In the case of the other defendants, although crimes against Jews were included in the counts against the, the main charge was making or contributing to illegal aggressive war and the offences committed in the course of making illegal war.

It appears that the prosecutors felt the necessity to charge at least one person specifically for crimes against Jews, and Streicher fitted the bill because of his notoriety as a Jew-baiter, and also because of his disreputable character, which served to make a connection between hostility toward Jews and personal moral depravity. The irony is that Streicher played absolutely no executive role in the process whereby many millions of Jews perished, and which was the issue requiring judgement. In that sense, I consider that Streicher was indeed made a scapegoat for the crimes against the Jews by the German Government, of which Streicher clearly was not a member or servant.

[winston]

Streicher deserved the maximum punishment allowed. He deliberately tried to stir up hatred, provoke attacks and murder against the Jews. How anyone with any decency can defend this worthless creature is beyond me completely.

[Ebusitanus]

I find Mr. Mills words very insightful and objective. Its the heat of partidistical leaning that makes not see the obvious that as much as Streicher had been a moral scoundrell and that his voiced opinions regarding the Jews were condemnable by all means, that the charge that was levied against him was totally out of proportion to his crime.
Mills is right in that he was made a perfect scapegoat for the very antisemitic ideal of National Socialism. Many more publishers denigrated Jews and fueled anti semite hatered but none of them was sent to the gallows.
Its imperative to see the diference between both crimes.

[Xanthro]

If someone stands on a street corner and starts screaming over and over, "Kill the blacks, they raped by daughter. Kill the Blacks, the raped my sister" and someone then kills a Black person, you are as guilty as the person who commited the murder.

Maybe in Europe. But in the U.S. would it not be protected speech under the First Amendment?

It wouldn't be proctected in the least.

In fact, the First Amendment doesn't protect you from the consequences of any speech.

All it does is, with limitations, bar the prior restraint of speech.

You can still be tried for the outcome of your speech, you can't for instance order someone killed and claim you were excersing freedom of speech, you can be sued for slander, and you can be tried for incitment.

You'll always be convicted if you call for direct action to be taken against a group. Telling people they should kill will land you in jail. That's why normally the sellers of hate try and disguise their terminology.

Xanthro

[Witch-King of Angmar]

You'll always be convicted if you call for direct action to be taken against a group. Telling people they should kill will land you in jail. That's why normally the sellers of hate try and disguise their terminology.

Xanthro

In jail, but not at the lower end of a noose(and there's a complex story regarding the noose itself). Plus, Streicher was the one and only, among all defendants, to be tortured prior to the trial.

~The Witch King of Angmar

[Scott Smith]

If someone stands on a street corner and starts screaming over and over, "Kill the blacks, they raped by daughter. Kill the Blacks, the raped my sister" and someone then kills a Black person, you are as guilty as the person who commited the murder.

Maybe in Europe. But in the U.S. would it not be protected speech under the First Amendment?

It wouldn't be proctected in the least.

I disagree. Burning a flag might be considered "fighting words" but that doesn't mean you can kill hippies or anybody who says something that pisses you off. It is not Hate-speech just because you don't like what they say. A jury of peers doesn't need to be convinced that Streicher's speech was bad. But he was not guilty of murder, nor, as Michael Mills has argued, did the Nuremberg Inquisitors prove that he logically caused any murder as one programs a computer.

Streicher was killed as a symbol for a propaganda-trial. As simple as that. Any lesser and more appropriate sentence would not achieve that objective.

In fact, the First Amendment doesn't protect you from the consequences of any speech.

No, but prosecution is not a consequence of speech.

All it does is, with limitations, bar the prior restraint of speech.

You can still be tried for the outcome of your speech, you can't for instance order someone killed and claim you were excersing freedom of speech, you can be sued for slander, and you can be tried for incitment.

You'll always be convicted if you call for direct action to be taken against a group. Telling people they should kill will land you in jail. That's why normally the sellers of hate try and disguise their terminology.

Well, Charles Manson was convicted for inciting murder (or murder, I forget the details), but that went a lot farther than just "selling hate." He should have been put away as clinically insane rather than charged with ersatz murder as he was not even present at one of the murder scenes, although his conspiracy/control with the perpetrators was obvious. There is a slippery-slope to Thoughtcrime prosecuting what people say on the theory that other people are programed to act against their own will and do it.

Oh, who will rid me of this turbulent cleric?

Who was to blame for the murder of Becket in your opinion, Henry II or the Knights "who took him at his word"?

[Tarpon27]

Michael Mills wrote:

Remember that pornographic anti-Semitic rantings are not in themselves a crime deserving the death penalty, at least not in an enlightened society.

Then, again, an "enlightened society" does not create, and make public political, economic, police, foreign, and even military policy where Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, handicapped, Slavs are considered subhuman and then killed...I won't say "exterminated" as it defends the political sensitivities of some here.

You seem to suggest that there must be some type of "concrete proof" that would have to exist to defintively link Streicher with Nazi German policies while it seems to me that you discount the militant antisemitism and racial ideology of the Nazi Party.

And per Streicher, Martin Gilbert mentions at least one example where allegedly under Streicher's orders, Jews were made to "eat grass". I don't have the book here where I post, but I will find it. My point being that I am curious as to what Streicher ever did while he had power...besides, of course, creating an atmosphere of vehement antisemitism with his periodicals.

In Nazi Germany, Jews were stripped of homes, possessions, jobs, businesses, shops, refused to buy necessary essentials, degraded, shipped off, and made to pay for it, but none of that was the result of propaganda that some here argue has victimized the historical perspective of Hitler's Germany.

Mark

[Xanthro]

If someone stands on a street corner and starts screaming over and over, "Kill the blacks, they raped by daughter. Kill the Blacks, the raped my sister" and someone then kills a Black person, you are as guilty as the person who commited the murder.

Maybe in Europe. But in the U.S. would it not be protected speech under the First Amendment?

It wouldn't be proctected in the least.

I disagree. Burning a flag might be considered "fighting words" but that doesn't mean you can kill hippies or anybody who says something that pisses you off. It is not Hate-speech just because you don't like what they say. A jury of peers doesn't need to be convinced that Streicher's speech was bad. But he was not guilty of murder, nor, as Michael Mills has argued, did the Nuremberg Inquisitors prove that he logically caused any murder as one programs a computer.

Incitement and calls for death are different.

I Nazi could legally go into a Jewish neighborhood and preach hatred, there have been such cases. What you can't do is say KILL that person. That's go beyond incitement, it is asking for action.

Incitement in the terms of fighting words means you are using language to get a response out of someone. That's not what Streicher was doing and you know it. His target audience wasn't Jews, it was Germans he hoped would destroy Jews.

Streicher was killed as a symbol for a propaganda-trial. As simple as that. Any lesser and more appropriate sentence would not achieve that objective.

Simply more of your Nazis were the victims propoganda.

Streicher told people to kill Jews. Streicher tried to get people to kill Jews. So he's guilty of murder than same as a Mob boss who says, Kill the witness.

Neither pulled the trigger, but both set into motion the actions that led to deaths.

In fact, the First Amendment doesn't protect you from the consequences of any speech.

No, but prosecution is not a consequence of speech.

It is and should be when your speech rises to the level of a crime.

You can't yell fire in a crowded theater.

All it does is, with limitations, bar the prior restraint of speech.

You can still be tried for the outcome of your speech, you can't for instance order someone killed and claim you were excersing freedom of speech, you can be sued for slander, and you can be tried for incitment.

You'll always be convicted if you call for direct action to be taken against a group. Telling people they should kill will land you in jail. That's why normally the sellers of hate try and disguise their terminology.

Well, Charles Manson was convicted for inciting murder (or murder, I forget the details), but that went a lot farther than just "selling hate." He should have been put away as clinically insane rather than charged with ersatz murder as he was not even present at one of the murder scenes, although his conspiracy/control with the perpetrators was obvious. There is a slippery-slope to Thoughtcrime prosecuting what people say on the theory that other people are programed to act against their own will and do it.

Now you defend Charles Manson :roll:

He tells people to kill, they kill, and because he wasn't physically there, somehow in your mind he's not guilty of murder.

No wonder you defend Streicher, to you unless the person pulls the trigger, that person isn't guilty.

Xanthro

[David Thompson]

Does anyone think that the cases of Julius Streicher and Ilya Ehrenberg (a frequently discussed figure in this section of the forum) are comparable?

[Scott Smith]

Now you defend Charles Manson :roll:

Do I?

I think you are seeking monsters to destroy. It must be a neocon thing.

He tells people to kill, they kill, and because he wasn't physically there, somehow in your mind he's not guilty of murder.

Well, he was at one of the murders. But with the other murder it is a bit more of a Constitutional challenge, and even the prosecutors were concerned about this.

[Scott Smith]

Does anyone think that the cases of Julius Streicher and Ilya Ehrenberg (a frequently discussed figure in this section of the forum) are comparable?

Well, Ehrenberg was a high Communist official. Streicher wasn't. But after the German surrender in Prague the radio stations were seized and they ordered the Czechs to "kill all the Germans."