Austrian bakery sells Nazi-cakes, owner faces prison

[ag]

I don't believe in someone's right to bake Nazi cakes, sorry. Some things should never be trivialized or dealed with lightly. Freedom of speech is on my priority scale way less important than to make sure that something like that could never happen again and that it will never be forgotten.

The problem is: banning speech makes it more, not less likely that something like this would ever happen again.

[ag]

No, no, you see problems where there aren't. What matters above all other things is that this sort of thing is not tolerated. There is no way to prevent them from happening, but they have to be utterly unacceptable when they do. There'll always be idiots and scum, that doesn't mean we have to just let them be. One doesn't argue that murder might just as well be legal because 3 millenia of ilegality haven't made it go away either.

I don't tolerate Nazism - as a person I wholeheartedly despise it and I would definitely boycott that bakery. But as long as idiots and scum do not have a way of imposing their idiocy and scumishness on the rest of us, they have the right to be idiots and scum.

[ag]

Do none of the libertarians see a problem with the fact that this was subjected to a lawsuit from a survivor organization? I mean, beyond the fact that it goes against free speech and all that?

I am emphatically not a libertarian, but I don't see any problem at all. You know, between Hitler and Stalin my family lost more members in the 20th century that survived, but I would not ban either Communist or Nazi symbols. I would make sure to make my revulsion public in this case - as a private person. But I would not call on the government to enforce my revulsion.

[ag]

I'll leave the libertarians with a little quiz:

I know full well the answer to your quiz: we've discussed it before in a rather similar context. It is remarkable, how such different lessons may be received from the same history. The lesson I get here is, precisely, that mere speech should not be banned. Despise it, fight it - but don't ban it.

BTW, one of my grandfathers had a dosen uncles and aunts (w/ families) killed in Uman. The entire family clan in Lithuania disappeared without a trace. And I very well remember another uncle who sruvived by escaping from a ghetto in Riga (twice).

But, on the other hand, once we are at it, Communists killed two of my great-grandfathers, and a brother of a third one.  Would you advocate banning Communist  symbols as well, to spare MY feelings?

[ag]

I'll leave the libertarians with a little quiz:

I know full well the answer to your quiz: we've discussed it before in a rather similar context. It is remarkable, how such different lessons may be received from the same history. The lesson I get here is, precisely, that mere speech should not be banned. Despise it, fight it - but don't ban it.

BTW, one of my grandfathers had a dosen uncles and aunts (w/ families) killed in Uman. The entire family clan in Lithuania disappeared without a trace. And I very well remember another uncle who sruvived by escaping from a ghetto (twice).

But, on the other hand, once we are at it, Communists killed two of my great-grandfathers, and a brother of a third one.  Would you advocate banning Communist  symbols as well, to spare MY feelings?

And, of course, to reiterate, I am not at all libertarian

[Associate Justice PiT]

To behave as these people behave is intolerable. You think there's no damage being done here? I can't think of a crime more heinous (so to speak). The things that are being trivialized here are  among the most pivotal events of the whole of human history. You say that this is not an act but 'just' speech. I must confess that I'm always baffled at how banal libertarians seem to think 'speech' and 'ideas' are. Why bother having free speech if it doesn't even have any consequences anyway? And if it does have consequences, how is this not an act? How is this not a direct insult to the 5.5 million victims of the Holocaust? How is this not an insult to the very core of humanity?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's intolerable that the righteous should always be out there to prevent this evil from finding a place to grow. The only correct response is to destroy it systematically when it pops up and be as harsh as humanely possible in doing so.

     Why should people not be allowed to insult "the very core of humanity"? It's called free speech for a reason, after all.

Why shouldn't I go round drowning kittens? Some moral imperatives are of a nature that exceeds my capacities to give them arational foundation. I don't think murder is okay because of that. WHy should it be okay to play pretend the Holocaust wasn't a big deal? I don'tv see how some petty little idea like 'freedom of speech' weighs up against the trivialization of pure evil.

     Possibly because I do not think that the government should be in the business of deciding what expressions are alright & what ones aren't. Begging the government to protect you from people glorifying past wrong-doing constitutes a sign of weakness, IMO. If people would actually try to argue against & protest fascism (or any other idea) rather than just banning it, they would find significant success in keeping it at bay. Don't people learn anything from the United States Republican Party?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The problem is: banning speech makes it more, not less likely that something like this would ever happen again.

Various restrictions on Nazi activity have been in place in certain countries since the 1940s and yet there has been a curious lack of resurgent fascist regimes in these countries. Extreme racist behavior and rhetoric has been illegal in Britain since the 1960s, yet the people who break the relevant laws are not regarded as martyrs.

[ag]

The problem is: banning speech makes it more, not less likely that something like this would ever happen again.

Various restrictions on Nazi activity have been in place in certain countries since the 1940s and yet there has been a curious lack of resurgent fascist regimes in these countries. Extreme racist behavior and rhetoric has been illegal in Britain since the 1960s, yet the people who break the relevant laws are not regarded as martyrs.

Post-war Europe - which is what we are talking about - is the area with strong democratic institutions. This one glaring weakness is not enough to undermine them comprehensively enough for this to happen. It is for weaker democracies where the danger would be more imminent. However, by trivializing the evil of Nazism, by almost consciously mimicking it, these regulations do indeed undermine European democracy, making it more, not less likely that this evil would come back.

[Platypus]

Nazi cakes are freedom of speech.

signed, Australian lefty

[Tender Branson]

I don't condone what the guy was doing... but he has the right to make whatever kind of cake he damn well pleases... and in any shape he wants.

But just like a southern White flying the rebel flag is seen by many as an affront to the black community... he has the right to fly it.  And I'd say if any community comes close to what the Jews went through, it was the slaves.

But I think that's the American perspective and Europeans have a tough time understanding it.  Freedom of expression is sacrosanct, for better or for worse.  (except when it isn't, which is a travesty)

Also:  The fact that I can find Mein Kampf at the local bookstore here while owning the book is a crime in Germany and Austria (as far as I remember) says a lot.  Those who would just as soon forget history are doomed to repeat it... and I see a lot of attempts to simply forget the Holocaust among Germans.  If I were in charge.. I'd make every kid read the book... spend large chunks of the school year learning about Hitler.. how f**ked up he was, how his cult of personality led to genocide... to admit that the whole affair was a defining moment of our history, for better or worse, learn from it, and move forward.  Instead you mention Hitler in a room full of Germans and you can cut through the awkwardness with a chainsaw.

Fact is that here in Austria WW2 is often not really discussed in school, at least it was the case when I was in school from 5th to 8th grade.

In our history classes, we started from past to present, as was the case in the books that we had. In 5th grade we learned about evolution, stone age, etc. then 6th grade I think about ancient Greece and Rome and the Middle Ages, 100 years war etc. 7th grade about Columbus who found America, 30 years war, reformation in Europe, Austria-Hungary.

Then in 8th grade I think we started with the developing industry in America and Europe and about the American and French Revolution, but because the year was almost over, the teacher stopped after WW1.

...

The fact that I know a lot about WW2 is because I went to a higher school after middle school, which 50% of Austrian kids are NOT doing. They have 8 years of school with a final labor-oriented year and then start to work as apprentice in some company.

That's also the reason why the FPÖ is so strong among young apprentices. They have almost no clue about modern history (1900-2011). Just recently we got new apprentices in our company incl. a few 15/16 year old girls. When I talked to 1 of them about September 11, she didn't even knew that happened on this date.

[Gustaf]

I'll leave the libertarians with a little quiz:

I know full well the answer to your quiz: we've discussed it before in a rather similar context. It is remarkable, how such different lessons may be received from the same history. The lesson I get here is, precisely, that mere speech should not be banned. Despise it, fight it - but don't ban it.

BTW, one of my grandfathers had a dosen uncles and aunts (w/ families) killed in Uman. The entire family clan in Lithuania disappeared without a trace. And I very well remember another uncle who sruvived by escaping from a ghetto (twice).

But, on the other hand, once we are at it, Communists killed two of my great-grandfathers, and a brother of a third one.  Would you advocate banning Communist  symbols as well, to spare MY feelings?

And, of course, to reiterate, I am not at all libertarian

I'm not actually advocating a ban of Nazi symbols (nor Communist symbols).

People taking the libertarian position on free speech will often say something similar to what you just said "this is disgusting I agree, so boycott it" But that is exactly my problem with this case. Apparently, this bakery had this in a brochure. Completely public. And, apparently, the only way it will disappear is through a law process, initiated by some Holocaust-survivor group.

In other words, this shows that Austria is a society where it is fine to hint that it would be better if all the Jews were wiped out. And this is the answer to why my grandmother would never go back to Austria. Not simply that there are bad memories or anything. But the fact that she knows she is still not welcome there.

Now, my Rwanda example was taking this to the extreme. It's pretty obvious that trying to protect free speech while the machetes get sharpened is ludicrous and irrelevant. Of course, Austria is nowhere near that, but I still thought it would be interesting to illustrate the problem here. There is a point where a society becomes sufficiently hostile and oppressive towards a minority that protecting the majority's right to threaten and verbally persecute the minority becomes unreasonable.

For instance, I would have no problem with this kind of bakery operating in Sweden, simply because it wouldn't be tolerated by society, regardless of the legal situation.

(btw, I assume you won't mind if I finish every post by asserting that your position on this issue puts you on the same moral level as Adolf Hitler?)

[Insula Dei]

I don't know whether Gustaf is right about the degree to which contemporary Austria still has a significant deal of anti-semitism (I'd imagine they have all evolved to hating the Mulims with their evil religion), but the point that Austria once was a Nazi country is also important to take into account here. If there's any place on the surface of the earth where this shouldn't be able to happen, it's those area's in central Europe where this evil erupted.

Suppose a gang would kill your entire family in the most gruesome way imaginable. Now suppose that when you return to your hometown some years later you find some people 'tagging' your house (or their own house across the street from yours) with the logo of the gang in question. Does speech really not constitute action here?

[tpfkaw]

Suppose a gang would kill your entire family in the most gruesome way imaginable. Now suppose that when you return to your hometown some years later you find some people 'tagging' your house (or their own house across the street from yours) with the logo of the gang in question. Does speech really not constitute action here?

That would be vandalism, and so not exactly comparable, but if you don't like the free exercise of speech somewhere, you can always leave.

[Insula Dei]

Suppose a gang would kill your entire family in the most gruesome way imaginable. Now suppose that when you return to your hometown some years later you find some people 'tagging' your house (or their own house across the street from yours) with the logo of the gang in question. Does speech really not constitute action here?

That would be vandalism, and so not exactly comparable, but if you don't like the free exercise of speech somewhere, you can always leave.

Thank god those Jews had the decency to leave Austria and Europe in general! Just imagine they'd have chosen to stick around with their intolerance to our Freedom of Speech!

[Gustaf]

To behave as these people behave is intolerable. You think there's no damage being done here? I can't think of a crime more heinous (so to speak). The things that are being trivialized here are  among the most pivotal events of the whole of human history. You say that this is not an act but 'just' speech. I must confess that I'm always baffled at how banal libertarians seem to think 'speech' and 'ideas' are. Why bother having free speech if it doesn't even have any consequences anyway? And if it does have consequences, how is this not an act? How is this not a direct insult to the 5.5 million victims of the Holocaust? How is this not an insult to the very core of humanity?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's intolerable that the righteous should always be out there to prevent this evil from finding a place to grow. The only correct response is to destroy it systematically when it pops up and be as harsh as humanely possible in doing so.

     Why should people not be allowed to insult "the very core of humanity"? It's called free speech for a reason, after all.

Why shouldn't I go round drowning kittens? Some moral imperatives are of a nature that exceeds my capacities to give them arational foundation. I don't think murder is okay because of that. WHy should it be okay to play pretend the Holocaust wasn't a big deal? I don'tv see how some petty little idea like 'freedom of speech' weighs up against the trivialization of pure evil.

     Possibly because I do not think that the government should be in the business of deciding what expressions are alright & what ones aren't. Begging the government to protect you from people glorifying past wrong-doing constitutes a sign of weakness, IMO. If people would actually try to argue against & protest fascism (or any other idea) rather than just banning it, they would find significant success in keeping it at bay. Don't people learn anything from the United States Republican Party?

Who are these "people" arguing against fascism? What if they don't exist?

[tpfkaw]

If you want to end genocide with 100% certainty, then abolish the state, of which genocide is an innovation.

[John Dibble]

No offense, but I don't think you have any idea what it is like to be a Jew in Austria, either back then or now.

I'm not in favour of bans of this kind, generally speaking, but in certain countries viewing it as being only about freedom of speech sort of misses the bigger picture.

No, I don't have an idea of what it's like. I don't think you do either. What I do have an idea of is being an atheist in a country with lots of evangelical nuts, many of whom who do not think I'm a real citizen of this country simply because I hold different beliefs than they do and who want the government to officially endorse their ideology. Not to say that it's the same thing, but it's not like I'm completely unaffected by the prejudices of ignorant bigots so I do have some perspective. As offended as I might be by those people I would still fight to the death for their right to advocate those things by peaceful means, because it's the same right that allows me to openly state my earnest beliefs that so offend their sensibilities.

Do none of the libertarians see a problem with the fact that this was subjected to a lawsuit from a survivor organization? I mean, beyond the fact that it goes against free speech and all that?

I noticed. I don't particularly find that relevant. If Anne Frank herself were to descend from the sky wrapped in divine light I'd still hold this position.

To behave as these people behave is intolerable. You think there's no damage being done here? I can't think of a crime more heinous (so to speak).

I can - actually killing people. Seems worse than baking an offensive cake to me.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Too bad - if you haven't figured it out by now then let me inform you that life isn't fair. You may not like it that the righteous actually have to work at keeping the world sane, but that's the way it is.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't view it as humane to throw someone in jail for baking an offensive cake.

Suppose a gang would kill your entire family in the most gruesome way imaginable. Now suppose that when you return to your hometown some years later you find some people 'tagging' your house (or their own house across the street from yours) with the logo of the gang in question. Does speech really not constitute action here?

It would constitute action, because it would be an outright act of intimidation and/or harassment against a person (in addition to damage of private property) and not just an expression of a thought or belief.

In the context of this situation, if a Nazi orders an offensive cake for him and his Nazi buddies to enjoy at one of their meetings, then no harm is done to anyone. On the other hand, if a Nazi were to order such a cake and send it to a Jewish person with the intent of intimidation and/or harassment you would have an actionable offense.

The problem is: banning speech makes it more, not less likely that something like this would ever happen again.

Various restrictions on Nazi activity have been in place in certain countries since the 1940s and yet there has been a curious lack of resurgent fascist regimes in these countries. Extreme racist behavior and rhetoric has been illegal in Britain since the 1960s, yet the people who break the relevant laws are not regarded as martyrs.

The KKK have always been able to legally hold open rallies in the USA, but racism against blacks seems to have been in steady decline. The laws banning the behavior aren't why minds have changed. They may have had some effect but it's not the biggest part. Minds have changed because good, rational people have been constantly fighting this kind of bigotry by expressing their ideas and showing how the bigots are wrong.

And yes, the people who get arrested for this kind of thing do get regarded as martyrs. They are regarded as such by the people who agree with them, just as suicide bombers are regarded as martyrs by the people who agree with them. It only serves to make them more zealous and insular - that's not something we should want.

[tpfkaw]

What JD said above, also the fact that if you outlaw non-violent forms of protest, people will feel forced to use violent methods instead.

[Gustaf]

No offense, but I don't think you have any idea what it is like to be a Jew in Austria, either back then or now.

I'm not in favour of bans of this kind, generally speaking, but in certain countries viewing it as being only about freedom of speech sort of misses the bigger picture.

No, I don't have an idea of what it's like. I don't think you do either. What I do have an idea of is being an atheist in a country with lots of evangelical nuts, many of whom who do not think I'm a real citizen of this country simply because I hold different beliefs than they do and who want the government to officially endorse their ideology. Not to say that it's the same thing, but it's not like I'm completely unaffected by the prejudices of ignorant bigots so I do have some perspective. As offended as I might be by those people I would still fight to the death for their right to advocate those things by peaceful means, because it's the same right that allows me to openly state my earnest beliefs that so offend their sensibilities.

Do none of the libertarians see a problem with the fact that this was subjected to a lawsuit from a survivor organization? I mean, beyond the fact that it goes against free speech and all that?

I noticed. I don't particularly find that relevant. If Anne Frank herself were to descend from the sky wrapped in divine light I'd still hold this position.

To behave as these people behave is intolerable. You think there's no damage being done here? I can't think of a crime more heinous (so to speak).

I can - actually killing people. Seems worse than baking an offensive cake to me.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Too bad - if you haven't figured it out by now then let me inform you that life isn't fair. You may not like it that the righteous actually have to work at keeping the world sane, but that's the way it is.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't view it as humane to throw someone in jail for baking an offensive cake.

Suppose a gang would kill your entire family in the most gruesome way imaginable. Now suppose that when you return to your hometown some years later you find some people 'tagging' your house (or their own house across the street from yours) with the logo of the gang in question. Does speech really not constitute action here?

It would constitute action, because it would be an outright act of intimidation and/or harassment against a person (in addition to damage of private property) and not just an expression of a thought or belief.

In the context of this situation, if a Nazi orders an offensive cake for him and his Nazi buddies to enjoy at one of their meetings, then no harm is done to anyone. On the other hand, if a Nazi were to order such a cake and send it to a Jewish person with the intent of intimidation and/or harassment you would have an actionable offense.

The problem is: banning speech makes it more, not less likely that something like this would ever happen again.

Various restrictions on Nazi activity have been in place in certain countries since the 1940s and yet there has been a curious lack of resurgent fascist regimes in these countries. Extreme racist behavior and rhetoric has been illegal in Britain since the 1960s, yet the people who break the relevant laws are not regarded as martyrs.

The KKK have always been able to legally hold open rallies in the USA, but racism against blacks seems to have been in steady decline. The laws banning the behavior aren't why minds have changed. They may have had some effect but it's not the biggest part. Minds have changed because good, rational people have been constantly fighting this kind of bigotry by expressing their ideas and showing how the bigots are wrong.

And yes, the people who get arrested for this kind of thing do get regarded as martyrs. They are regarded as such by the people who agree with them, just as suicide bombers are regarded as martyrs by the people who agree with them. It only serves to make them more zealous and insular - that's not something we should want.

I know a lot of Austrians, some of them Jews, so I think I do have an idea of what it's like.

And your answer about Anne Frank misses my point completely. I'm not going after sentimentality points here. But I'll be more blunt. Why didn't anyone else, beside, you know, the Jews themselves, react to this? How could this guy run this bakery with no one but the Jews minding it?

And should we interpret your last comment to say that suicide bombing should be legalized?

[Gustaf]

If you want to end genocide with 100% certainty, then abolish the state, of which genocide is an innovation.

I just wanted to add that this is a really stupid post.

[Insula Dei]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Has any of your ancestors been exterminated by Evangelical christians? I assume the answer is no.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If there's anyone who does have a right to speak ont his stuff, it's the victims of the shoah themselves, no?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, I don't like it that you seem to think that those who aren't evil should pay for the idiocy of people without anything ressembling basic decency and spend all their life trying to prevent another Holocaust.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Baking Nazi cakes in a place with Austria's history IS an act of harrasment. It IS an outright threatening move. Remember that Austria got off lightly in 1945.

[John Dibble]

But I'll be more blunt. Why didn't anyone else, beside, you know, the Jews themselves, react to this? How could this guy run this bakery with no one but the Jews minding it?

I don't have enough information to answer that question. It's unknown to me for how long he had these cakes in his catalog, how many people had viewed the catalog, who had viewed the catalog, etc. His bakery is in a village, so I don't assume there's a big population. Maybe the village is full of Nazis and they like it. Maybe others thought the cakes were in jest. Perhaps the people in the village just aren't very observant. Perhaps they have the similar views on free speech and don't think a cake is something to get upset enough about to raise a fuss. Or perhaps a non-Jew saw it and reported it to the Jewish group, which means that non-Jews do mind. Again, lots of possibilities, but not enough information to draw a conclusion.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course not. Please tell me you weren't asking seriously.

If you want to end genocide with 100% certainty, then abolish the state, of which genocide is an innovation.

I just wanted to add that this is a really stupid post.

Agreed. Tribes of people have been annihilating eachother long before anything resembling nation-states or even city-states even existed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Has any of your ancestors been exterminated by Evangelical christians? I assume the answer is no.

1. See bolded section. Perhaps you might care to pay attention next time.
2. Ancestry isn't relevant to persecution in the case of atheists, but atheists have been subjected to various degrees of bad treatment throughout history. Sometimes that treatment was indeed lethal, and is still so in some countries.

My point is that I'm not entirely without perspective on persecution. I've been personally relatively lucky in that regard, but it's not like I can't empathize to some degree.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If there's anyone who does have a right to speak ont his stuff, it's the victims of the shoah themselves, no?[/quote]

I never said they didn't have the right to speak on this stuff. My entire point is that people should have the right to express their opinion.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, I don't like it that you seem to think that those who aren't evil should pay for the idiocy of people without anything ressembling basic decency and spend all their life trying to prevent another Holocaust.[/quote]

And what, you don't think enforcing laws against it doesn't constitute that? They have to exert effort in that regard whether they do it my way or yours. They'll have to ensure the laws are enforced. They'll have to pay money to the government in the form of taxes so the government has the ability to enforce the laws. They'll have to ensure the laws stay in place because their enemies will seek to have them removed. Regardless of the means it is not going to be a struggle that ends so easily. Making a law isn't some magic bullet that will make this kind of problem go away. Either you're going to be willing to spend some portion of your life fighting the problem or you're not.

If I'm going to spend that portion of my life fighting a problem, I'm going to insist on doing it the right way and not just the one that seems easy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, it isn't. In order for something to be threatening or harassing you actually have to intentionally aim it at someone. Simply baking a cake is not doing that, nor is being willing to bake such a cake for those who want them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Irrelevant. Human rights shouldn't be a function of history.

[John Dibble]

But I'll be more blunt. Why didn't anyone else, beside, you know, the Jews themselves, react to this? How could this guy run this bakery with no one but the Jews minding it?

I don't have enough information to answer that question. It's unknown to me for how long he had these cakes in his catalog, how many people had viewed the catalog, who had viewed the catalog, etc. His bakery is in a village, so I don't assume there's a big population. Maybe the village is full of Nazis and they like it. Maybe others thought the cakes were in jest. Perhaps the people in the village just aren't very observant. Perhaps they have the similar views on free speech and don't think a cake is something to get upset enough about to raise a fuss. Or perhaps a non-Jew saw it and reported it to the Jewish group, which means that non-Jews do mind. Again, lots of possibilities, but not enough information to draw a conclusion.

Apparently the bolded one may be it. (not sure if it was a non-Jew though)

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iljDxZ9bT3FXbNwk1ShXjDd9ykvw?docId=CNG.923b2cd5041443c093c66218d623c411.811

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Also people not noticing might have had to do with this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Associate Justice PiT]

To behave as these people behave is intolerable. You think there's no damage being done here? I can't think of a crime more heinous (so to speak). The things that are being trivialized here are  among the most pivotal events of the whole of human history. You say that this is not an act but 'just' speech. I must confess that I'm always baffled at how banal libertarians seem to think 'speech' and 'ideas' are. Why bother having free speech if it doesn't even have any consequences anyway? And if it does have consequences, how is this not an act? How is this not a direct insult to the 5.5 million victims of the Holocaust? How is this not an insult to the very core of humanity?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's intolerable that the righteous should always be out there to prevent this evil from finding a place to grow. The only correct response is to destroy it systematically when it pops up and be as harsh as humanely possible in doing so.

     Why should people not be allowed to insult "the very core of humanity"? It's called free speech for a reason, after all.

Why shouldn't I go round drowning kittens? Some moral imperatives are of a nature that exceeds my capacities to give them arational foundation. I don't think murder is okay because of that. WHy should it be okay to play pretend the Holocaust wasn't a big deal? I don'tv see how some petty little idea like 'freedom of speech' weighs up against the trivialization of pure evil.

     Possibly because I do not think that the government should be in the business of deciding what expressions are alright & what ones aren't. Begging the government to protect you from people glorifying past wrong-doing constitutes a sign of weakness, IMO. If people would actually try to argue against & protest fascism (or any other idea) rather than just banning it, they would find significant success in keeping it at bay. Don't people learn anything from the United States Republican Party?

Who are these "people" arguing against fascism? What if they don't exist?

     I know that they didn't exist when they were needed, which is part of why fascist governments became so powerful in Germany & Italy. That isn't to say that anti-fascist protests don't work; just that people historically, for whatever reason, didn't take on the project while the fascists were still weak enough to be stopped.

[Gustaf]

But I'll be more blunt. Why didn't anyone else, beside, you know, the Jews themselves, react to this? How could this guy run this bakery with no one but the Jews minding it?

I don't have enough information to answer that question. It's unknown to me for how long he had these cakes in his catalog, how many people had viewed the catalog, who had viewed the catalog, etc. His bakery is in a village, so I don't assume there's a big population. Maybe the village is full of Nazis and they like it. Maybe others thought the cakes were in jest. Perhaps the people in the village just aren't very observant. Perhaps they have the similar views on free speech and don't think a cake is something to get upset enough about to raise a fuss. Or perhaps a non-Jew saw it and reported it to the Jewish group, which means that non-Jews do mind. Again, lots of possibilities, but not enough information to draw a conclusion.

Apparently the bolded one may be it. (not sure if it was a non-Jew though)

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iljDxZ9bT3FXbNwk1ShXjDd9ykvw?docId=CNG.923b2cd5041443c093c66218d623c411.811

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Also people not noticing might have had to do with this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The exact details of this case wasn't really my point. Since I have relatives and friends in Austria and have been there numerous times I know a little about the country. And I know this is rather symptomatic of a country that has not sufficiently dealt with its history of national socialism.

As the old joke goes, Austrians are great marketers: they made Hitler German and Mozart Austrian.