Resistance

GERMAR RUDOLF, RESISTANCE IS OBLIGATORY15161718192021222324252627also the symbolic term for the National Socialist genocide (against the Jews, at times also beyondthat). Of course this renders possible a two-folded lying, denying and doubting.BGH, NJW 2005, 689.Cf. Beisel, NJW 1995, 997 (1000, fn. 39); thoroughly Wandres (op. cit., fn. 13), pp. 43–46.In the journal Osteuropa 5/2002, 631, the Spiegel editor Fritjof Meyer arrives at half a millionvictims for this extermination camp: “Therewith the dimension of the collapse of civilizationfinally moves into an area of the imaginable and thus becomes for the first time a convincingwarning sign for the descendants.”Insofar the idea behind the article addresses agitation for pogroms (art. 130 II No. 1 PenalCode) and crass polemics (art. 130 II No. 2 Penal Code), which in our country is naturally consideredpunishable. He who holds the free, unimpeded, even crass-political speech in such highregard as the USA arrives at different results, though (on this instructively and rich in materialBrugger, in: Jb. d. öffentl. Rechts des Gegenwart, vol. 52 (2004), pp. 513ff.; ibid., AöR 2003,372 (on Holocaust lies 396ff.); ibid., in: VVDStRL 63 (2004), pp. 101ff. (inciting the masses133ff.).BVerfGE 7, 198 = NJW 1958, 257.“… the most immediate expression of the human personality in society… For a liberal democraticpolitical system it is absolutely essential, because only it allows the continuous intellectualcontest, the battle of opinions, which is its vital principle… It is in a certain sense the foundationof liberty as such” (BVerfGE 7, 198 = NJW 1958, 257 [258 1.Sp.] – Lüth). On thisGrimm, NJW 1995, 1697.In April 1994 (BVerfGE 90, 241 = NJW 1994, 1779) the First Senate did precisely not decideabout art. 130 III StGB, although their press release from back then suggested the opposite assumption;maybe it was even meant to do this; on this Bertram, NJW 1994, 2002 (2003).BVerfGE 90, 1 = NJW 1994, 178 1.That the Office for the Protection of the Constitution at times executes completely differentperceptions is a different matter; on this e.g. Bertram, NJW 2004, 344.Which is frequently expressed. On this instructively LeggewielMeier (ed.): Verbot der NPDoder Mit Rechtsradikalen leben?, 2002, passim.Cf. Isensee, Tabu im freiheitlichen Staat, 2003, pp. 73ff.Cf. Brugger, AöR 2003, 372 (403 with further ref.).Cf. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung of 25 Feb. 2005: “Kein Verbot extremistischer Symbole –Europäische Justizminister können sich nicht einigen;” as well as “Hammer, Sichel, Hakenkreuz:Balten gegen kommunistische Symbole;” Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung of 28 Feb.2005: “Mit Haken – Das europaweite Verbot der Swastika ist gescheitert.”311