Um.... guys? Has it occured to anyone that a council of Jews in Germany isn't supposed to have any jurisdiction over what the rest of the world sees? Because no one seems to be mentioning that. They're trying to keep YouTube from showing this extreme stuff to the WORLD. The rest of us don't have the censorship laws they have in Germany. We're getting bogged down on whether they have the right to show it, but how come some foreign special interest group thinks it has the right to censor us in our own country. YouTube is American owned! Maybe they'll ban it in Germany, but they have NO JURISDICTION to demand that YouTube not allow the rest of us free speech loving countries to decide for themselves. THAT is the real issue, not whether NAZI material is offensive. In that regard, I would simply say this: Did it happen? (WW2) Yes, this is what they used. We might want to be able to look at this stuff to make sure something doesn't happen that we don't want. You can't ban history.

Bryan Christopher Sawyer, Philadelphia,

While I agree with those who say the government mandating the censorship of the material is wrong, it should be noted that Germany was REQUIRED to pass those "Denazification" laws (as was Austria). Denazification laws are in effect in most countries that were part of German occupoed Europe, as a matter of fact.

That said, Google is not a nation-state. They are under no obligation to not filter material for any legal reason. You have freedom of speech, yes (at least in most countries), but you don't have the right to do it on my (or Google's, or any other private company's or person's) dime. Google can (and in my opinion should) voluntarily filter this crap.

If the extreme nazi movement wants to share their videos, they should create their own video sharing site for doing that.

Bill, Fresno, CA, US

If you really want to know who has power, ask yourself: "Who am I not allowed to criticize"?

"Zionists" simply will not stop until they control it all. Put your foot down now, or it will be a desperate bloody fight for survival in a few decades.

Mike Wittmann, Lawrence, Kansas

I have to agree with the anti-censorship proponents who have responded. An objective view on the nature of the material presented on You Tube is difficult to take, but necessary. The free expression of ideas, however good or evil, should not be hindered. It is the restriction of such things that leads people to desire them more. Nothing is more appealing than something forbidden. Exposure by sunlight is the best disinfectant. Those of Jewish faith should demand that Germany become less restrictive on their SGB 86 and 86a laws. The fact that the German public has been able to turn a blind eye to their own history for the past 60 odd years has been more harmful than good. The "ostritch in the sand" factor comes easily into play here; If I don't see it, it isn't there. Movies like "Jud Süß" should be exposed for the outlandish propaganda that they were and are.
Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

Nigel Tufnel, Colorado, USA

If you ban me from uploading or viewing a film, due to the political ideas it contains, you are limiting my freedom in a way that is completely unacceptable to me.

The main problem with such an approach in general, is that it assumes the government knows better than we what we should be thinking and watching. If this principle is allowed any traction, the government ends up dictating the acceptable ideas of our society, which is ridiculous and oppressive.

The thoughts and ideas of the public, especially when they have to do with social and political issues, must be free. Otherwise, we are giving up our power to think, communicate, and change our government, because only the sanctioned view will be allowed.

Trevor Hill, Washington, DC

It seems to me that euphanism's like 'extreme material' and 'hate speech' ect are more often than not, mere lables that correctofascist bigots simply slap on to anything that disagree's with them or is contrary to their agenda. I think they do this to keep the massive social powers they've aquired over the last 60 yrs. Ok so the old Nazi film was designed to be anti-semetic, but nevertheless it is also of historical interest and therefore has lisence as such. Moreover I think that National Socialism is more complex than people give it credit for and maybe seen to contain many different aspects that are in many ways seperate from Hitlerism in the same way that Communism is seperate from Stalinism. In fact I often find it ironic how Nazism appears to be an immitation of Racist Zionism: If Canaan wasn't seen by the Israelites on the eve of its destruction in the same way that the Nazi's viewed Russia - as a lebensraum for conquest & settlement by Gods chosen race - I don't know what was.

Chris, London, UK

Everyone agrees that child porn should be banned from youtube (in fact all porn is banned from youtube) so I see no reason why violently offensive or slanderous material shouldn't be banned too. Those ponitificating about free speech are people who are unaffected by this kind of race hate (and have not lost family memebers to it). Nazi propaganda in this case is slander directed against Jews and I see no reason why genocide-oriented slander should be freely allowed.
Post-War Germany is a strong, successful democracy. Its laws restricting Nazi slander have done it no harm and probably a lot of good.

Jonathan Lowenstein, tel-aviv, Israel

Sage: you are one and thus speak for just yourself. If YOU don't like society (us, we) then don't attempt to include others in your delusions, just ignore society then. And since you state not to be part of establishment, well then enjoy the nazi-propaganda, because you did not bring in your opinion about the article, which means you have no opinion. To take "no opinion" as a starting point to share random, delusional nonsense makes me wonder if you even understand what the article is about: Not everybody is happy when fascist propaganda is being unleashed upon people that have no clue what they are looking at. I am not, my friends aren't. These films are uncensored third reich hate flicks, designed to create hate against a randomly chosen "opponent". It's wicked that you don't agree on banning - yet you say banning will create a situation where WE'd create "...the need to kill everyone..." To me it is clear that you don't oppose the nazi propaganda. Munich never lost the war I guess.

Gerhard Meyer, Zurich, Switzerland

Of course it's right to censor videos that create hatred and damage our society.
There is a big difference between controling offensive and hateful ideas and controling political opinions, so much so that it's a complete waste of time to compare!
You tube has been criticised before for showing violent and illeagal content this is indicative of Google's attitude to it's responsibilties.

Charlotte , Osaka,

To me the way German bans anything to do with the Nazi's is a bit facist.......

Jamie Brown, Maidstone, England

It takes extra-ordinary circumstances to allow a political movement like the NAZI's to gain power.
I dont think Youtube video's count among those circumstances.

Banning objectionable propaganda only hides the truth. Hiding the truth increases ignorance. Ignorance is one of the key ingredients that allowed the NAZI's into power.

Likewise, you don't try and hide Religious extremism, you expose it and make people aware of it.

Phill Barlow, Heswall, England

By the time all the censors get done - China, Germany, US, Britain, etc. - we will have a nice world where everyone can talk about the wonders of consumption and the need to kill everyone - let's call them terrorists - who opposes the establishment. By sleight of hand, we are deceived as to the basic fact: it is and has always been the establishment that is the greatest terrorist.

Sage, München, Germany

Germany's oppressive laws criminalising free expression of anything even hinting at anything Nazi go beyond parody in their absurd harshness, yet, surprise surprise, fascist attacks are still increasing.
Censoring, banning, silencing expression of things govt and most of the public would rather didn't exist has always been a way of authority trying to pretend they don't exist.
Easier to punish the messenger than deal with the message.
Much as I hope Google resists these opponents of free speech, I fear they will end up ruining YouTube by imposing ever stricter restraints on a site that should be treasured for it's expose of how we really live today rather than the fantasyland portrayed in a heavily restricted mainstream media that is a pillar of the establishment.

Harlan Leyside, Basildon, England