The role of the historian as a certified expert in court trials. A response to Volker Dahm's article 'Freibrief fur Rechtsextremisten?'

In contesting Volker Dahm's critical assessment of court rulings concerning the public use of National Socialist insignia (Kennzeichen), the essays sh ows that Dahm's analysis of recent acquittals of people wearing black trian gular armbands similar to the ones used by the Hitler Youth is a misreading of Article 86a of the German penal code. In the jurisdiction of the last t wo decades, the legal term, Kennzeichen was restricted to those insignia no t only known to the people wearing them, but also to a wider public. Theref ore the designation of insignia as illegal depends directly upon whether or not they can be recognized nowadays as Kennzeichen employed in the past by organisations since forbidden. The prevailing interpretation of Article 86 a allows a broad application of legal sanctions against extremist challenge s to public order. A wider use of particular insignia by extremist groups c ould affect their legal classification to the point that their public displ ay might again be deemed a criminal offense. As questionable as Dahm's inte rpretation of the penal code is his notion of the role of the certified exp ert in court trials.