The Right to Be Wrong

For John, BLUF:  On the other hand, we need to fight such parties at the ballot box.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

German Court Rejects Effort to Ban Neo-Nazi Party

From the International Herald Tribune (masquerading as The Old Gray Lady), by Reporter Melissa Eddyjan, yesterday.♠

The lede plus three:

BERLIN — Germany’s highest court rejected on Tuesday an attempt to ban the National Democratic Party, the country’s oldest far-right political organization, finding that it did not pose a danger to democracy even though its principles violate the Constitution.

The ruling by the Federal Constitutional Court came after years of deliberation and at a time of soul-searching in the country, where another right-wing party, Alternative for Germany, is poised for the first time to win representation in Parliament in national elections this year.

Although the National Democratic Party “pursues aims contrary to the Constitution,” there was a lack of “concrete supporting evidence” that the neo-Nazi party would be able to successfully achieve its goals and to pose a genuine threat, said Andreas Vosskuhle, the president of the court.

“That a party has aims that run contrary to the Constitution is not sufficient grounds for banning a party,” he said.

I think the court made the proper decision.  Let us not have any Herbert Marcuse like ideas about banning ideas we don't agree with.  That leads to stagnation, political, social and intellectual.

As someone said, the point of the First Amendment is the right to be wrong.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Just out of curiosity, is it now acceptable that we have a series of paragraphs that are one sentence each?  If so, what is the purpose of a "sentence"?