NY Times Op-Ed Laments 1st Amendment

In the age of Diversity and Inclusion, it only makes sense to take advise from citizens of countries with even more Islamic State conducted terror attacks than America. Thankfully, NYT contributing op-ed writer Anna Sauerbrey was up to the task.

In Germany, the very presence of neo-Nazis openly marching through a city bearing swastika-emblazoned flags, as in Charlottesville, is unthinkable. Unlike the United States, Germany places strict limits on speech and expression when it comes to right-wing extremism. It is illegal to produce, distribute or display symbols of the Nazi era — swastikas, the Hitler salute, along with many symbols that neo-Nazis have developed as proxies to get around the initial law.

The law goes further. There is the legal concept of “Volksverhetzung,” the incitement to hatred: Anybody who denigrates an individual or a group based on their ethnicity or religion, or anybody who tries to rouse hatred or promotes violence against such a group or an individual, could face a sentence of up to five years in prison.

Thank goodness these “strict limits” will only be on right-wing extremism in Sauerbrev’s utopian American state, because inciting feelings of anti-male and anti-white resentment has become a staple of nearly every leftist media outlet.


Saurbrev goes on:

These laws apply to individuals, but they and others are also defenses against extremist political parties. The Constitutional Court, Germany’s highest court, can ban parties it deems intent on impairing or destroying the political order.

If only America had thought of banning problematic political parties! The mainstream media would have saved the millions it spent in cash and public trust trying to rig the election and we would finally have a president with a vagina.

Of course, Germany seems to have taken this idea from Hitler himself, but at least in the law’s current iteration it only applies to right-wingers and not the more reasonable power players in German political discourse.