§86a STGB allows for the use of “symbols of anti-constitutional organizations” in cases of:
art (e.g. the movie “Downfall”)
scientific research
education
news or other broadcast (covering Nazi Protests in the US for example, German news station don’t have to censor the Swastika flags or the like)
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.
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”.
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.”
“Are we the baddies?”
“I dunno, our gear looks okay now?”
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.
Oh, and for anyone who doesn’t recall: He’s the one whose clothes got nicked.
Ah, thanks for the context, didn’t know that. Browser Ballett is awesome.