Talk:Sylvia Stolz

speedy deletion tag
It is unclear why the speedy deletion tag came up immediately after this page was started. This is a scholarly attempt to write a biography on an important German lawyer on an important subject.


 * Because of this sentence: "Germany's draconian laws prohibit the kind of free speech that is accepted in the United States" — BradV 04:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Please do not add your opinion of Germany's free speech laws to this article. Encyclopedias are for fact. — BradV 03:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Just edited the article a bit because it suggested she was convicted for trying to defend Ernst Zundel while in fact, she was convicted for denying the Holocaust. angelocrator July 23 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelocrator (talk • contribs) 15:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a test. My account in the German Wikipedia got blocked few minutes ago. I didn't offend anyone, but first I put this link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWuiCgCec_I) on the German Talk page, where Sylvia Stolz explains her counter statement because of being now offended by the media. And then there was a short discussion on my Talk page. I always reacted polite and asked questions, but my account got blocked consequently, though. So it's just a test if this link gets deleted or not. The German Wikipedia is full of censorship. They don't want to discuss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.2.242.170 (talk) 02:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * YouTube videos with a Creative Commons licence can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. I guess there is some criterion about whether they show bias or not. Rjtucker (talk) 10:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Transcript
She simply is a criminal, who got what she deserved. More of that is needed, indeed--134.95.52.226 (talk) 20:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * She seems to have received a prison sentence from a German court and seems to be saying that she has nothing against being called a Nazi. One cannot really be held responsible for things that have happened before one is born, and shame (or pride) for such events is not really appropriate. The most important encyclopaedic point, however, currently, is possibly whether she has a valid legal argument. Rjtucker (talk) 10:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * According to Die Tageszeitung and Stolz, though not official records, the Mannheim court under Judge Meinerzhagen declined all petitions stating: "dass es völlig unerheblich sei, ob der Holocaust stattgefunden habe oder nicht. Seine Leugnung stehe in Deutschland unter Strafe" ("it is completely irrelevant whether the Holocaust took place or not, its denial is illegal in Germany"). This seems contradictory to me to the relevant law which states that "wer eine unter der Herrschaft des Nationalsozialismus begangene Handlung der in § 6 Abs. 1 des Völkerstrafgesetzbuches ... billigt, leugnet" ("who approves or denies an act described in § 6 Abs. 1 des Völkerstrafgesetzbuches under Nazi rule") with § 6 Abs. 1 des Völkerstrafgesetzbuches stating "Wer in der Absicht, eine nationale, rassische, religiöse oder ethnische Gruppe als solche ganz oder teilweise zu zerstören, ein Mitglied der Gruppe tötet usw." ("Whoever, with the intent of destroying as such, in whole or in part, a national, racial or religious group or one characterized by its folk customs by killing members of the group etc").Rjtucker (talk) 15:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Create page for German Holocaust denial
I wonder, since this page is, in fact, little biographic, whether a page shouldn't be created for the German law on Holocaust denial, § 130 Volksverhetzung Abs 3, since it is rather unique to Germany, and people who have been affected by it. This page could then be merged with it. I'm not sure how such a page would "fit in" with the already existing "Holocaust denial" page. Rjtucker (talk) 10:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit reversion 4 March 2015
Regarding the reversions effected by Philip Cross at 19:06, 4 March 2015 of two edits made by me timed 18:55 4 March 2015.

1) Could he please state why the comma should be needed between the final adjective and noun?

2) Could he please state why he believes Die Tageszeitung should be considered a dubious source? Does he believe the Goethe Institute would list it with Die Welt and the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung stating "... frei von jeglichem verlegerischen Einfluss. Die Schwerpunkte der Zeitung liegen in der nationalen und internationalen Berichterstattung zu Politik, Wirtschaft, Gesellschaft, Wissenschaft und Kultur" if it were of a dubious nature? Does he really believe it is making the judge's comment up and the fact that a law student commented on it? Does he believe its reporter misheard or misunderstood on either occasion? Why has he not used the Disputed-section template?Rjtucker (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It clearly muddies the water. You have come up with one source which potentially libels the judge in appearing to leave open the possibility that he might sympathise, or agree, with Holocaust deniers. It has already been made clear in the article that Holocaust denial is illegal in Germany, and suggests that the prosecution of Zündel and later Stolz was unjust. It should continue to be left out. Philip Cross (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately the situation may lie in muddy water.
 * My own feeling is that the quote if true would imply that the judge may not be applying the law in a strict manner.
 * There seems to me to be a question of what incitement Stolz intends and to what extent. Why would she limit her Holocaust denial to the courtroom? She clearly says in her AZK speech that one simply wants to know [what the truth about the Holocaust is]?
 * Does the judge's comment, if true, not point to some confusion in German minds of the correct path? Stolz's courtroom performance cannot really excuse improper procedure by the judge, rather the other way round.Rjtucker (talk) 22:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Appeal
Stolz was not imprisoned pending her appeal which took place on 15 February 2018.

https://www.dokmz.com/2018/02/17/gesinnungstaterin-stolz

https://www.annewild.de/prozess-gegen-die-holocaustleugnerin-sylvia-stolz

Rjtucker (talk) 09:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)