It's mostly covered in obscure books and journal articles. For some reason the failed censorship of the Nazi party is not a popular topic for modern discussion!
But for online discussions of this, see the references in the article "Why Even Nazis Deserve Free Speech", the work of Heidi Tworek, and more specifically her radio related "A Lesson From 1930s Germany: Beware State Control of Social Media" in the Atlantic, which discusses Hans Bredow's use of censorship in the Weimar Republic:
"As the Weimar Republic became more and more politically unstable, Bredow and others pushed through reforms in 1926 and 1932 that mandated direct state supervision of radio content. Bredow believed that increased state direction would prevent Weimar democracy from failing. Ironically, this effort played right into the Nazis’ hands, and meant that the Nazis could seize immediate control over radio content when they came to power"
Nazis were banned from speaking quite a bit before Hitler became Chancellor. At one point the Nazis were distributing a poster presenting themselves as victims because Hitler was being suppressed. Bavaria banned Nazi speeches, Nazis went to jail for anti-semitism and it just made them seem like martyrs, etc.
I just read "A Lesson From 1930s Germany: Beware State Control of Social Media". Unfortunately that article comes to an uncertain conclusion: "It is time for politicians to take the regulation of social media seriously. In the long run, however, they must be careful not to undermine the freedoms and the political system that they seek to protect." If the politicians are to take the regulation of social media seriously, what should they do about it? The example of Weimar is interesting, but it does not seem to prove much either way. Certainly the Streisand Effect is clear enough, but in that simple case it merely called attention to her house. I would not want to be a politician called on to try to suppress QAnon by means of censorship, but that still does not guarantee that such an attempt would be of no use. Maybe the Weimar censorship made the situation worse rather than better, but we cannot really know whether it did or not. Likewise maybe Twitter's action to ban Donald Trump made the situation worse -- something like imprisoning Nelson Mandela during Apartheid -- but can we be sure of any of this? There is no way to do a prospective controlled experiment!
It's mostly covered in obscure books and journal articles. For some reason the failed censorship of the Nazi party is not a popular topic for modern discussion!
But for online discussions of this, see the references in the article "Why Even Nazis Deserve Free Speech", the work of Heidi Tworek, and more specifically her radio related "A Lesson From 1930s Germany: Beware State Control of Social Media" in the Atlantic, which discusses Hans Bredow's use of censorship in the Weimar Republic:
"As the Weimar Republic became more and more politically unstable, Bredow and others pushed through reforms in 1926 and 1932 that mandated direct state supervision of radio content. Bredow believed that increased state direction would prevent Weimar democracy from failing. Ironically, this effort played right into the Nazis’ hands, and meant that the Nazis could seize immediate control over radio content when they came to power"
Nazis were banned from speaking quite a bit before Hitler became Chancellor. At one point the Nazis were distributing a poster presenting themselves as victims because Hitler was being suppressed. Bavaria banned Nazi speeches, Nazis went to jail for anti-semitism and it just made them seem like martyrs, etc.
I just read "A Lesson From 1930s Germany: Beware State Control of Social Media". Unfortunately that article comes to an uncertain conclusion: "It is time for politicians to take the regulation of social media seriously. In the long run, however, they must be careful not to undermine the freedoms and the political system that they seek to protect." If the politicians are to take the regulation of social media seriously, what should they do about it? The example of Weimar is interesting, but it does not seem to prove much either way. Certainly the Streisand Effect is clear enough, but in that simple case it merely called attention to her house. I would not want to be a politician called on to try to suppress QAnon by means of censorship, but that still does not guarantee that such an attempt would be of no use. Maybe the Weimar censorship made the situation worse rather than better, but we cannot really know whether it did or not. Likewise maybe Twitter's action to ban Donald Trump made the situation worse -- something like imprisoning Nelson Mandela during Apartheid -- but can we be sure of any of this? There is no way to do a prospective controlled experiment!
Thank you! That should certainly be in history books, at least in the detailed ones.