[t43562]

There's a problem and solutions with consequences. Every law limits freedom in one way or another. It's a case of how probable and sever is the problem compared to the consequences of the law.

In Germany the problem is Nazis and a choice about how to stop them doing it again. We have seen that such people can convince nearly an entire population (so the problem is likely) and start a world war (so the problem is extreme). Why would anyone debate the need for a law that limits a freedom in a case we consider pretty unworthwhile anyhow (limiting the freedom to deny the holocaust).

As for vaccines it's again a calculation where we know the problem is extreme (huge economic losses and deaths) and the likelihood increases based on how many people don't vaccinate - or whether people in specific jobs don't vaccinate. The calculation shouldn't be that hard.

[Koshkin]

> how to stop them doing it again

But the Germans are not more prone to becoming "nazis" (again) than any other nation.

[Jensson]

Pretty sure that 1946 when the country was still full of old Nazi supporters the risk was pretty high. I don't think the risk is that high today, but the laws definitely served a good purpose when they were created.

[goldenbikeshed]

That law is still put to good use nowadays.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ursula_Haverbeck