Adolf Hitler has one of the most instantly recognized names in modern history. He stands as one of the most reviled figures, swathed in horror, revulsion, and a deep and sickening sense of shame.
Hitler and his Nazi regime were responsible for some of the most heinous acts of genocide ever committed. As a result, the name of Adolf Hitler continues to resonate today, and many people are asking if it should be banned.
Hitler’s name, and the Nazi regime’s legacy, have been under scrutiny since the end of World War II. In recent years, debates over the name have become increasingly central to discussions about freedom of expression and the concept of ‘the right to offend’ a person or a group.
Supporters of a ban or at least, restriction on public displays or formal use of the name, point to the ground-breaking Nuremberg Trials of 1945-46. These trials were the first international tribunals since the Roman Empire to use criminal law to punish individuals for misconduct of a political nature.
The, then newly established United Nations, held that, “Nuremberg constituted a legal revolution and set a precedent for international criminal proceedings, including modern war crimes tribunals.”, thereby using criminal law as an important tool to eliminate “organised criminal activity”.
In the eyes of some, it follows that the name of Adolf Hitler should be inextricably linked to this legacy of oppression and brutality, and its power to offend, and thereby should be deemed untouchable and proscribed.
However, at the other end of the spectrum, there are those who preach the need for an open and transparent exchange of ideas, even if those ideas are offensive, or contrary to widely-held beliefs. This group of free speech advocates, assert that restricting debate on a topic, in this case, Adolf Hitler’s name, does more harm than good.
Dr. Stev Iverson, a professor at the University of Washington, says, “Restrictions on speech are never well-advised, even when it comes to ‘offensive’ subjects like Adolf Hitler. Banning the name erases history, and does not allow us to reflect and learn from the past.”
Supporters of the open exchange of ideas offer a long-standing consensus among legal scholars. According to them, simply knowing the name of Adolf Hitler is not a criminal act. Though they do accept that public displays or speeches featuring negative or incendiary comment must be carefully monitored and controlled, they maintain that people should have a right of access to public discourse. This point of view is echoed in the idea that history should be made by its remembrancers, not by its perpetrators.
Morality
The prohibition of Hitler’s name comes into question morally. Could a ban truly be moral when it inhibits the open exchange of ideas? Taking a stand on this issue is more complicated than a mere binary answer. There must be a measured examination of the implications of restricting either side of this debate.
Germany, for example, has long been known for its severe penalties for publicly using Nazi symbols or language linked to Hitler. While this restriction was implemented in order to protect the citizens’ right to freedom from hate speech, it has been criticised on the basis of its blanket approach.
Joshua Wheeler, a professor at the The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, asserts, “Criminalisation of speech does not prevent the resurgence of fascism and can make more profound the divide between those with access to elite education and the rest.” His argument asserts that open discourse is the only way to truly fight fascism.
Despite this legal justification, there are those who still believe Hitler’s name should be banned, with some calling for the removal of books from libraries, movies from cinemas, and even the destruction of paintings. This demonstrates the power of the name, and how its potency has endured for more than 75 years.
Intent of Use
It should be noted however, that some use of the name has nothing to do with the spread of racism or incitement of racial hatred. Instead it is used to record the facts of history, to understand its relevance to our present, to study and reflect on its consequences, and to learn in order to expand our knowledge and to grow as a species.
In today’s increasingly globalised world, where opinions quickly become action and harmful words or acts can have far-reaching consequences, we must remain vigilant in our conversations and be mindful of the power of language. It is only through careful, inclusive and balanced debate, that we can truly understand the meaning and implications of our words.
As the late sociologist, Martin Luther King Jr. said, “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter”. Banning the name of Adolf Hitler does not allow us to reflect and learn from the past, and could be deemed as a tool for censorship and suppression of views.
Educational Purposes
But can we ignore the power of the name to inflame, offend, exclude or incite hatred? The answer must include a nuanced consideration, otherwise any ban on the name of Adolf Hitler may incur greater pain to the victims of National Socialism than any relief it may bring.
educating future generations on the importance of understanding and recognising their own potential biases, prejudices, and assumptions. In this way, we increase the focus on teaching the events of the past, not just as a series of facts, but as stories of human suffering and understanding of humanity. Consequently, the name of Adolf Hitler should be retained but used only in the context of educational and reflective purposes.
It is important to note that those advocating for an open exchange of ideas believe in regulations that ensure that aimed not to sow discord, but to create a civil environment for respectful discussions. At the same time, those looking for a more regulated atmosphere are attempting to protect vulnerable communities from hate speech, and ensure that historically traumatising terms are not allowed to be used to hurt and exclude.
Public Discourse
A reintroduced policy of open discourse should be informed by a heightened awareness of the impact of words. This, in turn, should go hand in hand with a heightened responsibility towards the public to make a space for all voices that have a legitimate stake in the conversation.
An understanding of the implications of both sides of the argument gives us, as global citizens, the opportunity to bring all perspectives together to form a balanced, thoughtful and humane conversation. Doing so will only strengthen the cause of those advocating for the open exchange of ideas and create a more informed, compassionate and equitable society.
Ultimately, it cannot be denied that the name of Adolf Hitler is historically important and significant. We must, as a society, find a way to use this name in a manner that honours the victims of the Holocaust, and not one that perpetuates the language of hate that continues to pervade the world.
Conclusion
The name of Adolf Hitler is one that carries with it immense historical significance and emotion. We must find a way to ensure that his name is not used to spread hate speech and to fuel ignorance, but also that his name is not so problematic as to be used for educational and historical purposes.
We must come to a consensus that utilises the power of discourse to balance both the need to learn from the past and the responsibility of respecting its victims. Banning the name of Adolf Hitler should not be a consideration, but navigating it responsibly must remain a priority.
