Justice is blind, as the saying goes. But sometimes it can be blind to its own best interests – or to those of the public it is meant to serve.

This certainly appears to have been the case recently in Bavaria when Bavarian state authorities found themselves in the unenviable and ultimately untenable position of attempting to ban a new publication in what involved, on the surface at least, a conflict over copyright limitations but which, in a broader and more significant sense, raised questions about German officialdom’s role in shielding the public against “undesirable” thought.

The publication at which Bavarian authorities directed their judicial ire, entitled Zeitungszeugen (literally “newspaper witnesses”), began appearing in January of this year with the stated purpose of offering readers historical instruction and insight by means of reproductions of Nazi-era newspapers. Each issue of Zeitungszeugen provides commentary and analysis by respected historians directed at the facsimile copies of Nazi publications included within the paper’s outer sleeve, publications such as the Voelkischer Beobachter or Der Angriff (as well as of other, non-Nazi newspapers from the era). Many well-known German historians, including Hans Mommsen and Hans Ulrich Wehler, applauded the effort. But Bavarian authorities took a dim, unapproving view of the publication’s use of undiluted Nazi materials. Acting on orders from the state attorney’s office, police in January fanned out across the land to confiscate copies of Zeitungszeugen from newsstands while civil proceedings were prepared against the British publisher, Peter McGee, and his publishing house, Albertas. The offense, according to the official complaint, was twofold: first, infringement of copyrights claimed by the Bavarian Finance Ministry for Nazi publications from the period; and, second, the illegal display (within the facsimiles) of “symbols of unconstitutional [i.e. Nazi] organizations.” The larger concern, however, had to do with the alleged dangers posed by the distribution of “unfiltered” Nazi propaganda and its potential misuse by neo-Nazi groups.

Aside from the fact that these same materials (including Hitler’s Mein Kampf – the publication of which is also banned in Germany) can be easily accessed via the internet, there is also the question of whether the German public still needs to be protected from Nazi thought – or, indeed, any thought deemed hateful or in some fashion objectionable. As Zeitungszeugen editor-in-chief Sandra Poweronshitz asks on the paper’s website, have Germans reached a point of political and cultural maturation sufficient to allow them to be presented with raw, undigested material from the historical record? Obviously she believes they have. But through their actions, Bavarian authorities demonstrate that they continue to have doubts. The only other possible objection might lie in the tastelessness of the material. But, beyond considerations of fundamental public decency, should the state assume the role of determining what is tasteful and what is not? Or might the best means of confronting any lingering threat posed by Nazi ideology lie in exposing that ideology to wide-spread public scrutiny? I, for one, have recently begun playing recordings of excerpts from Nazi addresses to my son, who is now studying the Nazi period in school. This seems to me the most forceful way of revealing the loathsome and inhuman character of the Nazi regime. Its own words serve as the most effective tool against it.

In any event, Bavaria’s efforts to stop Zeitungszeugen have since encountered their first significant roadblock. In late March, a court ruled on the narrow question regarding copyright restrictions, saying that limitations on materials published before 1 January 1939 no longer apply. Therefore, Zeitungszeugen is free to continue reproducing publications printed prior to that time. The court chided Bavarian officials for attempting to use copyright law to impose a ban on publications like Zeitungszeugen, strongly suggesting that the legal status of the historical materials it employs should be codified in new law. So it is possible that we have yet to hear the last word in this affair.

www.zitungszeugen.de
www.sueddeutsche.de/kultur/324/455995/text/print.html
www.sueddeutsche.de/kultur/456/456126/text/
www.sueddeutsche.de/bayern/877/456545/text/
www.sueddeutsche.de/,ra4m1/kultur/756/461382/text/
www.sueddeutsche.de/bayern/309/462921/text/