> Anonymous Germany Facebook account with millions of followers.
... which regularly posted conspiracy theories, fake news and distributed hate speech against migrants.
> Einzelfallmap social media accounts that tracked refugee crimes.
...ONLY "refugee" crimes, without a comparison to German crimes this is nothing more than inciting hate.
> Some of their content was debatable, but they were nowhere near the level of indymedia.
It was Twitter and Facebook that shot them down. Private entities, not the government - that's a difference.
> Then they put the identitarian movement on a watch list, who have done very little so far in terms of actual crime.
One IB guy in Berlin nearly ran over a cop with a car. The IB tried obstructing of SAR NGOs, and they were filmed while trying to pirate a speedboat of Open Arms NGO boat. IB activists have committed many crimes, ranging from simple vandalism over shooting with (fake) guns (Martin Sellner in Austria) to attempted murder (the guy with the truck and the police officer).
>Also, there's the continuous effort to ban the right-wing party (NPD).
"Normal" right-wing as in conservative would be CDU and CSU.
To quote the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) [0]
>Die Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands (NPD) vertritt ein auf die Beseitigung der bestehenden freiheitlichen demokratischen Grundordnung gerichtetes politisches Konzept.
The Nationaldemocratic Party Germany (NPD) stands for a political concept aimed at abolishing the free democratic constitutional structure.
Do you have any awareness about the laws governing the history of violent extremism in Germany? Theres a reason right wing and far right wing parties face legal scrutiny.
Technically speaking, there's no law governing any history; There's laws governing behavior in the present that arose from events in history. I live in Germany for 12 years by now; I can't claim a lawyer-level knowledge of e.g. §130 StGB, but I have a basic understanding.
What I'm having trouble following is the logic of "the violent extremism on the other side is less bad, because it hasn't led to similarly horrible effects yet".
It matters because of transparency. Getting rid of some bad organizations.. and then a few that they just don't like. Like, it's easy to say "terror organizations" - and when you look at the actual organizations under that umbrella, there probably is some really bad shit, but there may also be a few that someone just doesn't like. Makes sense?
In that specific hate-inciting speech Geert Wilders was calling for fewer Moroccans. And this is primarily directed towards Dutch people with a Moroccan background who've already live in the Netherlands for decades or are second-generation immigrants. There is virtually no immigration from Morocco, in 2015 approximately 1% of the immigrants arriving in The Netherlands was Moroccan [1].
Criticising past immigration is something different than inciting an audience to chant to reduce the number of Dutch citizens with a specific background.
Most political parties in The Netherlands have talked about the problems of immigration and integration in The Netherlands at least since Pim Fortuyn 15 years ago. Some parties longer (e.g. Frits Bolkenstein of the VVD, who Geert Wilders worked for). So, it is by no means illegal to talk about current or past immigration policies.
