this post was submitted on 22 Jan 2025
1153 points (98.6% liked)
pics
19745 readers
2540 users here now
Rules:
1.. Please mark original photos with [OC] in the title if you're the photographer
2..Pictures containing a politician from any country or planet are prohibited, this is a community voted on rule.
3.. Image must be a photograph, no AI or digital art.
4.. No NSFW/Cosplay/Spam/Trolling images.
5.. Be civil. No racism or bigotry.
Photo of the Week Rule(s):
1.. On Fridays, the most upvoted original, marked [OC], photo posted between Friday and Thursday will be the next week's banner and featured photo.
2.. The weekly photos will be saved for an end of the year run off.
Instance-wide rules always apply. https://mastodon.world/about
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There's plenty of "fair use" cases which would allow it.
§86a STGB allows for the use of "symbols of anti-constitutional organizations" in cases of:
And probably applying in this case - in protesting said anti-constitutional organizations, for example a crossed out Swastika as a form of protest against Nazis is still very much legal.
Most important is the intent. If you plan to use those symbols with the intent of furthering the ideology of anti-constitutional organizations, it is probably forbidden. The intention has to be clearly against those organizations, otherwise it might be actionable.
Btw the communist party of Germany, the KPD is also considered an anti-constitutional organization and therefore it's symbols are forbidden in the same way.
Which is funny because the video game series Wolfenstein famously had to change all of their in-game imagery. The series is about killing Nazis, but it was banned in Germany until the game devs removed all of the swastikas. Because apparently showing the swastika is banned, even when it’s used explicitly to say “these are the bad guys.”
Yeah, there were some real conservative views on what counts as art or education and what does not that influenced that decision I figure.
It's silly regardless on both sides in my personal view. Like yeah it's a little silly to not allow it, since the law would easily have allowed for it but also - it's a Swastika, I'm fine in a video game without it, I'm not gonna die on that specific hill for sure.
You wouldn't even have to die on that hill anymore because you can buy the uncensored wolfensteins in Germany today.
Yes! Interestingly, this only is possible now because the rules changed in 2018: https://usk.de/usk-beruecksichtigt-bei-altersfreigabe-von-spielen-kuenftig-sozialadaequanz/
The German bureaucracy changed their stance from "Nazi shit should not be in games, period" to "it depends on social adequacy" which meant that games from then on where handled the same way as other forms of art.
Game publishers could've changed it way earlier but noone bothered to bring a case to court but opted to self-censor instead, thus the BPjM had to follow an age-old, singular, court ruling.
The game that prompted the change was this one, in particular Gauland's special move is a swastika. Someone, predictably, complained, and the case didn't even make it before court as the state attorney said "this is obviously completely legal political commentary".
To top it all off the game was published by public TV. Same people who made this sketch.
Haha I hadn't seen that game before, thanks for that. Gauland is depicted exactly as ridiculous as he should be treated.
Quick, someone translate "dackelkrawattig" for the Anglos.
Ah, thanks for the context, didn't know that. Browser Ballett is awesome.