NationStates Jolt Archive

Germany has a long-standing ban on Nazi symbolism, a rather understandable ban given that Germany under the Nazis was possibly the worst regime in world history, potentially second only to the Soviet Union under Iosef Stalin. (Depending upon who you ask.)

But this ban is a form of censorship on free speech. The question I ask: should Germany abandon this ban?

In my opinion: An absolute most certain yes. Running away from history does not help anyone, and suppressing speech in this way only serves to strengthen the ideals that are being oppressed. Only through open, clear discussion and such can such ideals actually be truly revealed for what they are. I understand that Germany is ashamed of this part of its history, but Germany needs to get beyond it, I say. (Yes, I realize I'm not a German and therefore don't have any true concept of how it must feel to be a citizen of a country that had one of the most vilified regimes in history. Not the point.)

Yes. The only way to successfully beat an ideology is to fight it in the open. Banning it only drives it underground.

No. The only way to beat an ideology is to completely deny it the oxygen of publicity. Doesn't matter if it's "underground" - nobody cares, because nobody hears about it.

I think German people need to stop feeling like they owe the world anything for the sins of their fathers. Heck, they can get the older-than-85 Germans going "I'm sorry!" for the rest of their lives, but aside from those that actually got involved, they're clean.

I think German people need to stop feeling like they owe the world anything for the sins of their fathers. Heck, they can get the older-than-85 Germans going "I'm sorry!" for the rest of their lives, but aside from those that actually got involved, they're clean.

Agreed.

But this ban is a form of censorship on free speech. The question I ask: should Germany abandon this ban?

In my opinion: An absolute most certain yes. Running away from history does not help anyone, and suppressing speech in this way only serves to strengthen the ideals that are being oppressed. Only through open, clear discussion and such can such ideals actually be truly revealed for what they are. I understand that Germany is ashamed of this part of its history, but Germany needs to get beyond it, I say. (Yes, I realize I'm not a German and therefore don't have any true concept of how it must feel to be a citizen of a country that had one of the most vilified regimes in history. Not the point.)

Well you say it's not the point, but I think it is. The Germans elect their governments, and those governments continue the ban. It's obviously not exactly unpopular with them. If they decide that this one limitation of free speech (I don't think it's the only one, in Germany, I mean you can't yell fire falsely either) is OK, then I do too, and that's pretty much that.

Personally, yes, it'd be nice if we could have total free speech, but that's an ideal, not a practical manifesto. Other things - the will of the people - have to be taken into account first.

No. The only way to beat an ideology is to completely deny it the oxygen of publicity. Doesn't matter if it's "underground" - nobody cares, because nobody hears about it.

More people hear about it. Because instead of some 13 year old spraypainting a swastika on the wall and getting a slap on the wrist and open, honest dialogue about what he did, he gets a hate crime charge, and makes it to the papers.

The very fact that it can be "underground" means that people do hear about it...instead of a dialogue, they hear a monologue of exactly what they want to hear, rather than facts.

Well you say it's not the point, but I think it is. The Germans elect their governments, and those governments continue the ban. It's obviously not exactly unpopular with them. If they decide that this one limitation of free speech (I don't think it's the only one, in Germany, I mean you can't yell fire falsely either) is OK, then I do too, and that's pretty much that.

Personally, yes, it'd be nice if we could have total free speech, but that's an ideal, not a practical manifesto. Other things - the will of the people - have to be taken into account first.
Oh, true, I agree. I'm just asking people what THEY think the Germans should do. A little bit of weighing in, if you please.

Yootopia: Except that anything involving Nazism will get immediately reported in the news, and added to that, the only way you could ever completely choke an ideology in the way you're suggesting is a complete and total blackout of all information exchange, which is unsustainable.

It wouldn't actually change anything, you know. The groups likely to use Nazi symbolism know it puts people off and strengthens opposition to them, so they'll continue to use runes, other Germanic symbols (the sun wheel for instance, which is similar to Wilgrove's avatar) and so on instead.

All this is is one of those "won't somebody please think of the children" issues which prevents politicians from doing anything.

More people hear about it. Because instead of some 13 year old spraypainting a swastika on the wall and getting a slap on the wrist and open, honest dialogue about what he did, he gets a hate crime charge, and makes it to the papers.
So you don't publish it, job's a good 'un.
The very fact that it can be "underground" means that people do hear about it...instead of a dialogue, they hear a monologue of exactly what they want to hear, rather than facts.
Alright, here's your debate :

"Hitler was pretty pish, esp his racial ideas"
"No he wasn't"
"You are just retarded"

So you don't publish it, job's a good 'un.

Alright, here's your debate :

"Hitler was pretty pish, esp his racial ideas"
"No he wasn't"
"You are just retarded"

is "pish" a good thing or a bad thing?

is "pish" a good thing or a bad thing?
Bad. Although if it was the opposite, that would be just as valid regarding this particular debate.

is "pish" a good thing or a bad thing?

who knows, crazy British...bunch of bloody wankers, the lot of them. :p

Bad. Although if it was the opposite, that would be just as valid regarding this particular debate.
In that case, debates aren't usually to convince the person you are debating against: they're pretty sold on their position. The purpose is to sway those who are undecided. That is impossible without dialogue (dialogue in the expanded sense, not just verbal discussion)
who knows, crazy British...bunch of bloody wankers, the lot of them. :p

Ugh...tell me about it. ;)

In that case, debates aren't usually to convince the person you are debating against: they're pretty sold on their position. The purpose is to sway those who are undecided. That is impossible without dialogue (dialogue in the expanded sense, not just verbal discussion)
I think most people have a pretty solid view one way or the other on Nazism, let's be honest.

I think most people have a pretty solid view one way or the other on Nazism, let's be honest.

To some extent, yes. But there is a chunk of people (especially young people who are angry at the world/society) who are looking for a way to vent this anger...and there are dozens of ways they could go.

The point of debate are those who aren't nazis, but who are not firmly against. And yes, there are many. And every once in a while, a debate will actually manage to sway one of the more intelligent followers.

It wouldn't actually change anything, you know. The groups likely to use Nazi symbolism know it puts people off and strengthens opposition to them, so they'll continue to use runes, other Germanic symbols (the sun wheel for instance, which is similar to Wilgrove's avatar) and so on instead.

All this is is one of those "won't somebody please think of the children" issues which prevents politicians from doing anything.

To be fair, while I don't use the ruins or sun wheel, I don't think of them as bad symbols.

To me they are the same as the Confederate flag. I don't see it as a bad thing and don't mind people flying it. Most people I know don't consider it a bad thing and most just associate it with southern pride and southern culture. Since I'm not personally Southern, I don't use it, but meh...I have no problem with it.

And for anyone who's interested, these are what we are talking about:

They have connections to Nazism, but they also have much older and culturaly important connections to Northern and Central Europe, and unlike the Swastika, aren't TOTALLY taken over by Nazism, atleast in my opinion. Opinions may vary.

Edit: Sun wheel is a bit iffy, actually :p

Edit 2: To me it depends on the person. If you see a person with a KKK tattoo and he is flying a Confed Flag, he's probably flying it for it's racist background......if you see a German nazi-punk on a bus/train in Germany (you'll know them when you see them) and they have a rune tattoo, then you know why. But just the runes themselves I don't picture as bad/evil.

http://www.clker.com/cliparts/e/9/8/1/11949839651621056462sunwheel_vikingdread_01.svg.hi.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/Old_Futhark_o.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/df/Runic_letter_algiz.svg/40px-Runic_letter_algiz.svg.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/98/Crossed_circle.svg/124px-Crossed_circle.svg.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0a/Wolfsangel.svg/534px-Wolfsangel.svg.png

Banning a symbol is one thing. Jailing people for saying the holocaust didn't quite happen as it is officially stated is another. Germany is ran by Jews.

To be fair, while I don't use the ruins or sun wheel, I don't think of them as bad symbols.

To me they are the same as the Confederate flag. I don't see it as a bad thing and don't mind people flying it. Most people I know don't consider it a bad thing and most just associate it with southern pride and southern culture. Since I'm not personally Southern, I don't use it, but meh...I have no problem with it.
There is no such thing as Germanic pride though. The only people (particularly in politics) who would run around with these symbols are in fact neo-nazis. It's like saying the Hammer and Sickle just stands for appreciating agricultural- and construction work.

At any rate, the point is that these symbols are used by these groups now instead of the swastika not simply to circumvent laws, but to attempt to differentiate themselves from the Third Reich. There are too many people who happen to know that living under Hitler sucked for Germans as well. Using a rune for example is like saying "we have all the ethno-nationalism of the nazis, but without the Gestapo". Which, if you then look at their views on people who don't happen to be ethno-nationalists, is bullshit of course.

They have connections to Nazism, but they also have much older and culturaly important connections to Northern and Central Europe, and unlike the Swastika, aren't TOTALLY taken over by Nazism, atleast in my opinion. Opinions may vary.
You can have any opinion you want, but if the symbol's meaning is clearly defined within public discourse, wouldn't it be kinda stupid to use it in public and expect people to interpret it differently? And in reality you can accuse these groups of many things, but being naive about this sort of thing isn't one of them. They know precisely what they're doing and why they're doing it.

To me it depends on the person. If you see a person with a KKK tattoo and he is flying a Confed Flag, he's probably flying it for it's racist background......if you see a German nazi-punk on a bus/train in Germany (you'll know them when you see them) and they have a rune tattoo, then you know why. But just the runes themselves I don't picture as bad/evil.
Nazi-Punk? Punks are politically on the left, they're the Antifa types who get into street battles with the skinheads. In the context, the distinction is kinda important.

I think German people need to stop feeling like they owe the world anything for the sins of their fathers. Heck, they can get the older-than-85 Germans going "I'm sorry!" for the rest of their lives, but aside from those that actually got involved, they're clean.

They can do that after the German government pays me 1 million euros. Then they are totally clean of all past karmic debt. That and provided they still teach history as well as they have been about WWII (don't follow Japan's example)

Germany is ran by Jews.
Can you name any?

Can you name any?

didnt most of them go to the US or Israel ?

They can do that after the German government pays me 1 million euros. Then they are totally clean of all past karmic debt. That and provided they still teach history as well as they have been about WWII (don't follow Japan's example)

;gag.. The German people owe you nothing.. but don't fret I'm sure you are already getting it .. one way or the other.. If you are actually a Jewish German.

Can you name any?


*rubs hands*

Had a long ass list one day.. Deleted it ... cause I felt bad for even having it. I will see if I can find it again. Honestly. It wasn't a list of just gov ppl, it was also of corps etc. ofcourse all over companies etc deal weight. Again I'll see.

didnt most of them go to the US or Israel ?
Yeah, but there is a sizable Jewish community in Germany. There are those who stayed and their families, and more recently large numbers of immigrants from Russia. There's actually a bit of bitching going on between the two, because the latter lack the appreciation for Jewish history in Germany that is obviously very important for those to whom it is a central issue of their life in the country.

I'm pretty sure there are several Jewish politicians in parliament (I couldn't tell you whether they're over- or underrepresented), but that's really just about it as far as control is concerned. The German Jewish Council occasionally offers commentary on stuff that's going on, but that doesn't get acted upon.

;gag.. The German people owe you nothing.. but don't fret I'm sure you are already getting it .. one way or the other.. If you are actually a Jewish German.

nope not Jewish or German in Anyways. I just deserve 1 million Euros and I figured it would be best to ask those with a deep sense of guilt.

There is no such thing as Germanic pride though. The only people (particularly in politics) who would run around with these symbols are in fact neo-nazis. It's like saying the Hammer and Sickle just stands for appreciating agricultural- and construction work.
But I didn't say anything about Politics. Naturally if someone launched a political party with a Sun Wheel as it's symbol, I'd be.....inclinded to agree with you. But if it's just someone who, let's say, has a Rune on his backpack or something...I wouldn't worry about it or consider it a bad thing. Same thing with the Confed flag. If someone launched a political party here using the Confed flag as his smybol, I'd agree with you. But if it was just some person with the Confed flag on his backpack, I wouldn't think twice.

At any rate, the point is that these symbols are used by these groups now instead of the swastika not simply to circumvent laws, but to attempt to differentiate themselves from the Third Reich. There are too many people who happen to know that living under Hitler sucked for Germans as well. Using a rune for example is like saying "we have all the ethno-nationalism of the nazis, but without the Gestapo". Which, if you then look at their views on people who don't happen to be ethno-nationalists, is bullshit of course.
In politics, but that doesn't mean just a normal person who is, of let's say Swedish or some kind of Nordic background and admires runes or such and has a picture of a rune on his binder or back pack. The only one I'd be concerned with would be the SS runes, only because, like the Swasi, their relationship with Nazism just totally puts their former meanings into the shadow of Nazi-Germany. The same cannot be said of other runes, though, or Germanic/Nordic cultural symbolism.

You can have any opinion you want, but if the symbol's meaning is clearly defined within public discourse, wouldn't it be kinda stupid to use it in public and expect people to interpret it differently? And in reality you can accuse these groups of many things, but being naive about this sort of thing isn't one of them. They know precisely what they're doing and why they're doing it.
But you're still only talking about in politics, where I'm just talking about an individual who happens to feel a connection to runic images or whatever...

I think you should draw a distinction.
Nazi-Punk? Punks are politically on the left, they're the Antifa types who get into street battles with the skinheads. In the context, the distinction is kinda important.

Oh I'm aware of the difference, but I meant that alot of times you see Nazis dressed up in all black, in those ugly boots, with some chains on their clothes and just an all around 'punky' look. I say 'punky' because they look similar to how American punks dress and even how many European punks dress. They even often wear the same type of ugly boots, just with different color laces to 'represent' for their respective ideology. I meant 'punk' in sense of appearance, not ideology. I should have been more clear.

Not to be confused with the Nazis who dress very militaristic. I'm talking about the darker, more 'punk' looking ones that I've seen in a bus or in a bar.

Edit: here's what I mean, sorry for the confusion:

A skinhead is a member of a subculture that originated among working class youths in the United Kingdom in the 1960s, and then spread to other parts of the world. Named for their close-cropped or shaven heads, the first skinheads were greatly influenced by West Indian (specifically Jamaican) rude boys and British mods, in terms of fashion, music and lifestyle.[1][2] Originally, the skinhead subculture was primarily based on those elements, not politics or race.[2] Since then, however, attitudes toward race and politics have become factors in which some skinheads align themselves. The political spectrum within the skinhead scene ranges from the far right to the far left, although many skinheads are apolitical. Fashion-wise, skinheads range from a clean-cut 1960s mod-influenced style to less-strict punk- and hardcore-influenced styles.

*rubs hands*

Had a long ass list one day.. Deleted it ... cause I felt bad for even having it. I will see if I can find it again. Honestly. It wasn't a list of just gov ppl, it was also of corps etc. ofcourse all over companies etc deal weight. Again I'll see.

...why did you have this list?

They can do that after the German government pays me 1 million euros. Then they are totally clean of all past karmic debt. That and provided they still teach history as well as they have been about WWII (don't follow Japan's example)
Something to think about.

When you are a student in Germany, you are taken to visit the concentration camps with your school. I'd say the vast majority of German school childen have visited the concentration camps for educational reasons.

I know I did/had to when I studied in Germany. We were taken to Dachau and given a tour.

...why did you have this list?

He is a German nationalist seeking to cleanse Germany of the jews.

Something to think about.

When you are a student in Germany, you are taken to visit the concentration camps with your school. I'd say the vast majority of German school childen have visited the concentration camps for educational reasons.

I know I did/had to when I studied in Germany. We were taken to Dachau and given a tour.

exactly why the Germans continue to teach history so well they have no debt as far as I am concerned. Except that 1 million euros they should give me.

exactly why the Germans continue to teach history so well they have no debt as far as I am concerned. Except that 1 million euros they should give me.
What? Can you rephrase that?

What? Can you rephrase that?

Sorry little drunk.
The germans teach WWII history very well. they dont try and hide from the past the wish everyone there would learn from it so that past does not prevent itself.

You see this lacking in other countries most notably Japan, but also the United States where we forget to mention Events like The cruise ship the St. Louis being turned back from Cuba (because of US pressure) with a ship load of German jews seeking to escape. We let them sail to Cuba see the shore then forced the ship to turn around back to Germany.

...why did you have this list?

Because it was interesting. If I had saved all my stuff of all the 'conspiracies' I've ever had I couldn't run my pc. Main things I use to research was big money.. corps etc.. Was like a spider web.. with levels. Corruption was what I use to most look for..

But any who .. I can't even find the page that I got it from now. It wasn't just focused on Jews btw, it was on powerful people, Saudis and America etc.. its what I first went searching for. But when I did see it I of course started googling names, and many were yes true.. as far as being head honcho in charge of this or that. They matched up with the position or whatever that was on the list. It wasn't just jews tho.

If you are gonan ask.. well how did you know they were jews? Names and pics (if you see a pic) can lay that to rest. Don't try to say jews are not inproportionally powerful in many ways compared to their number. or that you can't 8 or 9 out of ten times tell a Jew by their name or face.

(just relating to here) I remember Atlantian Islands put up a pic of himself .. he thought his beutiful golden hair was so European like.. no jewishenss.. Well as soon as I saw his face .. It was like bam! Jew! Blue eyes blonde hair.. so?


I'm an arse :$

Because it was interesting. If I had saved all my stuff of all the 'conspiracies' I've ever had I couldn't run my pc. Main things I use to research was big money.. corps etc.. Was like a spider web.. with levels. Corruption was what I use to most look for..

But any who .. I can't even find the page that I got it from now. It wasn't just focused on Jews btw, it was on powerful people, Saudis and America etc.. its what I first went searching for. But when I did see it I of course started googling names, and many were yes true.. as far as being head honcho in charge of this or that. They matched up with the position or whatever that was on the list. It wasn't just jews tho.

If you are gonan ask.. well how did you know they were jews? Names and pics (if you see a pic) can lay that to rest. Don't try to say jews are not inproportionally powerful in many ways compared to their number. or that you can't 8 or 9 out of ten times tell a Jew by their name or face.

(just relating to here) I remember Atlantian Islands put up a pic of himself .. he thought his beutiful golden hair was so European like.. no jewishenss.. Well as soon as I saw his face .. It was like bam! Jew! Blue eyes blonde hair.. so?


I'm an arse :$

o.O


...I think I liked G&D's explanation better...

Because it was interesting. If I had saved all my stuff of all the 'conspiracies' I've ever had I couldn't run my pc. Main things I use to research was big money.. corps etc.. Was like a spider web.. with levels. Corruption was what I use to most look for..

But any who .. I can't even find the page that I got it from now. It wasn't just focused on Jews btw, it was on powerful people, Saudis and America etc.. its what I first went searching for. But when I did see it I of course started googling names, and many were yes true.. as far as being head honcho in charge of this or that. They matched up with the position or whatever that was on the list. It wasn't just jews tho.

If you are gonan ask.. well how did you know they were jews? Names and pics (if you see a pic) can lay that to rest. Don't try to say jews are not inproportionally powerful in many ways compared to their number. or that you can't 8 or 9 out of ten times tell a Jew by their name or face.

(just relating to here) I remember Atlantian Islands put up a pic of himself .. he thought his beutiful golden hair was so European like.. no jewishenss.. Well as soon as I saw his face .. It was like bam! Jew! Blue eyes blonde hair.. so?


I'm an arse :$
lol wut :D

o.O


...I think I liked G&D's explanation better...

I doubt I would. I'm sure it was something derogatory. What ever.

I doubt I would. I'm sure it was something derogatory. What ever.

You could just read it yourself...it's only a page back...

lol wut :D


Your beautiful golden locks. You had on a hair band .. it was in a thread about hair? I dunno. Damn.. But I remember.. Iirc I told you you looked like a girl, cut it.

o.O


...I think I liked G&D's explanation better...

lol thank you. I just type whatever comes to mind. too bad it normally turns out to be right.

nope not Jewish or German in Anyways. I just deserve 1 million Euros and I figured it would be best to ask those with a deep sense of guilt.


Oh.

Your beautiful golden locks. You had on a hair band .. it was in a thread about hair? I dunno. Damn.. But I remember.. Iirc I told you you looked like a girl, cut it.
Ah.Quite a memory you have? That was like years ago, I guess. (For the record I think it was a headband not a hair band...they are different. One is athletic and the other is for girls. :p)

Anyway, for the sake of my curiosity, what about me seemed "Jewish" to you?

I promise I won't get mad, I'm just interested. I have thicker skin than most, don't worry. :p

It's not as simple as just saying, "okay, we're over it now," and lifting the ban. The law itself is meant also as a reminder that Germany will never return to those roots, and that what happened in the past should stay in the past, forever.

It's also about the Neo-Nazi movement. No Germans want a bunch of young asshole Ossies coming around holding the swastika aloft and chanting, "Heil Hitler!" The scars of WWII are still felt in every German household.

At least, that's what my relatives tell me :D. I myself was born in Connecticut.

Ah.Quite a memory you have? That was like years ago, I guess. (For the record I think it was a headband not a hair band...they are different. One is athletic and the other is for girls. :p)

Anyway, for the sake of my curiosity, what about me seemed "Jewish" to you?

I promise I won't get mad, I'm just interested. I have thicker skin than most, don't worry. :p



For you, eyes and nose.. honestly. I am not saying at all that you are unattractive btw.. I am not saying ppl who look jewish are unattractive, just that I recognize it .. alot.

It's usually bone structure.. which includes eyes, nose (I know a nose is mostly cartilage, but dammit) .. and somehow lips and chin. Hair too.. but if they have the fro, they usually are very obvious. Not that only jews have the fro, many Irish do..

For you, eyes and nose.. honestly. I am not saying at all that you are unattractive btw.. I am not saying ppl who look jewish are unattractive, just that I recognize it .. alot.

It's usually bone structure.. which includes eyes, nose (I know a nose is mostly cartilage, but dammit) .. and somehow lips and chin. Hair too.. but if they have the fro, they usually are very obvious. Not that only jews have the fro, many Irish do..
Channeling a bit of anthropological taxonomy, are we? :p

Channeling a bit of anthropological taxonomy, are we? :p


Just memory and visualization from life. :wink:

I'm normally for free speech, but certain origins, such as Nazism, should be banned. Fascism - have it all you want. But if you allow Nazism in the open - they'll march to provoke. I am ok with the Swastika, (since it's origin predates Nazism) and the use of the word Aryan (again since it's origin predates Nazism) but to allow combinations that are clearly a symbol of Nazism is inappropriate. And why's everyone talking about Jews being killed, Nazis killed 6 million Jews and over 20 million people of Slavic origin (not counting those fighting in the Red Army). And if you deny the Holocaust in a country that was affected by it, you should go to jail, becuase in doing so you are inciting hatred, on both sides that could lead to severe consequences. You may have freedom of speech, but try yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater. The ACLU btw lost a third of its membership for supporting the Nazis; I was surprised that they survived.

I understand their reasons, and I think nobody has better reasons... but

still, I am against censorship. I think it is a basic wrong to stifle political free speech. Even if that speech advocates the prohibition of free speech.

I'm normally for free speech, but certain origins, such as Nazism, should be banned. Fascism - have it all you want. But if you allow Nazism in the open - they'll march to provoke. I am ok with the Swastika, (since it's origin predates Nazism) and the use of the word Aryan (again since it's origin predates Nazism) but to allow combinations that are clearly a symbol of Nazism is inappropriate. And why's everyone talking about Jews being killed, Nazis killed 6 million Jews and over 20 million people of Slavic origin (not counting those fighting in the Red Army). And if you deny the Holocaust in a country that was affected by it, you should go to jail, becuase in doing so you are inciting hatred, on both sides that could lead to severe consequences. You may have freedom of speech, but try yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater. The ACLU btw lost a third of its membership for supporting the Nazis; I was surprised that they survived.

you sir would destroy freedom to protect the symbol of freedom. let them march in the streets so everyone can see how stupid they are. The KKK does so in the US and they are nothing more then a laughing stock now. Blacks don't ever bother to counter protest simply because they know 99% of whites find the KKK to be a joke. when you ban something you make it sacred. When you jail someone you give them creditability as an opposition leader. Ignore them if they commit violence then arrest them for that no need to bring up their beliefs.

i find that kind of a tough call because i have the same problem both ways. i mean i think censorship is something that everyone needs to be very careful with how its used. at the same time, i think the problem with symbolism is what it means in people's minds.

of course the symbols nazism stole had other, more positive meanings before they did, so i believe the day will come when they've been restored to THOSE meanings and not what that era and perspective perverted them into.

i don't know WHEN that day will come, perhapse soon, perhapse another generation or two, but i'm not convinced that day has quite come yet. not when there are still people, however few, using those false arguments of racial superiority and so on, and treasuring them in mind.

so much as i regret any censorship, i don't think germany is doing wrong to continue to repress this for a little while longer, at least maybe one more generation, or possibly at most two. by then though, i think enough WILL have chainged that this is no longer, well, will really no longer mean anything. people will see that 'airplane symbol' and think shinto or buddhism or something, or just a neat way to build a revolving book case or something. but just not yet.

It's not as simple as just saying, "okay, we're over it now," and lifting the ban. The law itself is meant also as a reminder that Germany will never return to those roots, and that what happened in the past should stay in the past, forever.

It's also about the Neo-Nazi movement. No Germans want a bunch of young asshole Ossies coming around holding the swastika aloft and chanting, "Heil Hitler!" The scars of WWII are still felt in every German household.

At least, that's what my relatives tell me :D. I myself was born in Connecticut.

But at the same time, it almost seems that Germany is afraid of its own shadow sometimes, afraid of anything that even remotely evokes Nazism. In a sense it's still as though Nazism has some measure of control over their lives, even if only in a sense of avoidance.

Wouldn't be healthier to, while admitting that horrible deeds were done, also recognize that the current government is staffed by people who may not even have been alive when it happened and that while it should not be forgotten, there is also nothing positive to be gained by living under its shadow forever.

In japan the nazi symbol means temple. Its actually a symbol of the revolving sun and has nothing to do with the nazis.

In japan the nazi symbol means temple. Its actually a symbol of the revolving sun and has nothing to do with the nazis.

That's nonsense, it also means swastika just like in the west.

Germany has a long-standing ban on Nazi symbolism, a rather understandable ban given that Germany under the Nazis was possibly the worst regime in world history,
In the modern history.


potentially second only to the Soviet Union under Iosef Stalin. (Depending upon who you ask.) Depending on whether you ask people who have an idea of what these regimes were like, and understand they're hardly comparable, or the red-scared political pundits who made brown bibles and tried to ban Santa Claus.


But this ban is a form of censorship on free speech. The question I ask: should Germany abandon this ban?
Not entirely. It's not all about being ashamed, it's about the risk of neonazi coming out in Germany.

Reduce the scope of the ban, reduce the penalties, add a solid exception for use for comedic or critical purposes - yes.

Germany has a long-standing ban on Nazi symbolism, a rather understandable ban given that Germany under the Nazis was possibly the worst regime in world history, potentially second only to the Soviet Union under Iosef Stalin. (Depending upon who you ask.)

But this ban is a form of censorship on free speech. The question I ask: should Germany abandon this ban?

In my opinion: An absolute most certain yes. Running away from history does not help anyone, and suppressing speech in this way only serves to strengthen the ideals that are being oppressed. Only through open, clear discussion and such can such ideals actually be truly revealed for what they are. I understand that Germany is ashamed of this part of its history, but Germany needs to get beyond it, I say. (Yes, I realize I'm not a German and therefore don't have any true concept of how it must feel to be a citizen of a country that had one of the most vilified regimes in history. Not the point.)You are misinformed.

I understand their reasons, and I think nobody has better reasons... but

still, I am against censorship. I think it is a basic wrong to stifle political free speech. Even if that speech advocates the prohibition of free speech.That's not prohibitted.

In japan the nazi symbol means temple. Its actually a symbol of the revolving sun and has nothing to do with the nazis.
It's a Buddhist symbol, presumably developed in the north-western parts of India that also happen to be the mythical home of the earliest of the Aryan master race. That's probably why the Nazis chose it.

It doesn't mean temple so much as it's the usual sort of good luck charm, so it's used extensively as ornament. You should've seen the looks on the faces of the German retirees I went on a tour of China with a few years ago. :tongue:

It's a Buddhist symbol, presumably developed in the north-western parts of India that also happen to be the mythical home of the earliest of the Aryan master race. That's probably why the Nazis chose it.

It doesn't mean temple so much as it's the usual sort of good luck charm, so it's used extensively as ornament. You should've seen the looks on the faces of the German retirees I went on a tour of China with a few years ago. :tongue:

Yeah. Nazi mythology is actually pretty interesting once you take the time to read it. Of course take it with a pinch of salt, but nevertheless intriguing. Some claims are rather outlandish but then again other ones are still up to debate or discussion and have some historical validity.

The claim that the 6 deutsche Kernrassen originated from modern-day Iran/West India/Tibet region for one. Recent blood testing showed that Persian Iranians who already have a very high propensity to green eyes and pale european skin are genetically most related to Europeans. Sharing almost nothing with the Arabs, Kurds, Turks and Indians living around them. As well as some remarkable similarities between some sects of Hinduism and Nordic Paganism.

It would also help explain where the Germanic tribes came from. As Europe was originally populated by Celts. At least until they were replaced/absorbed/cleansed by the Germanic tribes in most places except far off corners such as Ireland/England.

Other amusing pecularities would be one of Xerxes titles being Lord of the Aryans. This title was also used by several other Persian Emperors. Or the fact that Persia was renamed Iran, which is arguably a corruptive form of Aryan. Or the fact that Chinese writings from 200bc, dictate a fierce red-haired tribe with emerald eyes living in the western Chinese province. Little trace of them has been found as well, leading to the conclusion they probably also migrated either towards Russia or Europe.

But meh. Humans migrate and move around. That the modern-day Germans, might have had roots in the border regions of India is feasible. Who is to say their ancestors didn't migrate East first after leaving Africa, only to migrate again? But at the end of the day irrelevant since it has no greater purpose or meaning. But they might help understand the motivations behind the National Socialist regime choosing symbology such as the swastika generally associated with the far East.


PS: Sorry for being slightly offtopic.

They could just take a chapter from China and burn the memorabilia if they're ashamed of that chapter. It doesn't change history if they lift the ban, burn the memorabilia, or keep the ban in place. It happened, it passed, and relations between Germany have improved since the end of WWII.

Personally, I believe that Germany knows what they should or shouldn't do. It probably should be lifted because it's a part of their history and their history should be preserved. On the other hand, a symbol that used to mean "peace" has now been tarnished thanks to some overzealous lunatic and now means the opposite.

Germany has a long-standing ban on Nazi symbolism, a rather understandable ban given that Germany under the Nazis was possibly the worst regime in world history, potentially second only to the Soviet Union under Iosef Stalin. (Depending upon who you ask.)

But this ban is a form of censorship on free speech. The question I ask: should Germany abandon this ban?

In my opinion: An absolute most certain yes. Running away from history does not help anyone, and suppressing speech in this way only serves to strengthen the ideals that are being oppressed. Only through open, clear discussion and such can such ideals actually be truly revealed for what they are. I understand that Germany is ashamed of this part of its history, but Germany needs to get beyond it, I say. (Yes, I realize I'm not a German and therefore don't have any true concept of how it must feel to be a citizen of a country that had one of the most vilified regimes in history. Not the point.)

Yes.

Here's a question to the people who think they should lift the ban.

If you see me one day and I am wearing a Hitler Mustache, are you NOT going to be reminded of Hitler?

Because people in Germany (and elsewhere in Europe) are on the whole probably going to be reminded of Hitler and Nazism when they see that. But more especially, when they see the bloody Nazi Swastika. I know my American genes are telling me they should just collectively 'get over it,' but then I don't know a time when the US was ravaged by a holocaust, total war, and genocide on the scale of millions of people.

It's not about 'sweeping away the past' or anything, it's about not having THE most potent Symbol of the Nazi party being waved about as a clear visual reminder, a sort of "FUCK YOU AND ALL YOUR COUNTRIES AND PEOPLES" summed up in one convenient sign (that's what's great about symbols in the first place - all that meaning in one simple image).

I mean if someone (for example) murdered your grandmother and used her flesh to make hamburger, would you want a symbol that (somehow) expressed the sentiment of murder and cannibalism waved in your face by people who thought that the murderer/cannibal was a real great guy? I don't think you would.

Bit of an odd example, I know. But try to see beyond your own collective societal experience. The USA on the whole has never suffered, the way Europe did as a result of the Nazis.

Here's a question to the people who think they should lift the ban.

If you see me one day and I am wearing a Hitler Mustache, are you NOT going to be reminded of Hitler?

Nope Charlie Chaplin, that's where Hitler got the Idea for said mustache

Because people in Germany (and elsewhere in Europe) are on the whole probably going to be reminded of Hitler and Nazism when they see that. But more especially, when they see the bloody Nazi Swastika. I know my American genes are telling me they should just collectively 'get over it,' but then I don't know a time when the US was ravaged by a holocaust, total war, and genocide on the scale of millions of people.
[quote]
We had something similar we still fly the Confederate flag if we want to.
[quote]

It's not about 'sweeping away the past' or anything, it's about not having THE most potent Symbol of the Nazi party being waved about as a clear visual reminder, a sort of "FUCK YOU AND ALL YOUR COUNTRIES AND PEOPLES" summed up in one convenient sign (that's what's great about symbols in the first place - all that meaning in one simple image).

If you can not face/stand up to that symbol you are running from it and cowards of the worst degree.


I mean if someone (for example) murdered your grandmother and used her flesh to make hamburger, would you want a symbol that (somehow) expressed the sentiment of murder and cannibalism waved in your face by people who thought that the murderer/cannibal was a real great guy? I don't think you would.

wow someone made a hyperbole greater then Godwin's law congrats I didn't think it was possible. Congratulations


Bit of an odd example, I know. But try to see beyond your own collective societal experience. The USA on the whole has never suffered, the way Europe did as a result of the Nazis.
And Europeans never suffered the way African Americans did under the south in the US. They are still not afraid to face the battle flag of the confederacy. Or the Klu Klux Klan and their bedsheets. It is when you are not afraid to face something that you truly have power over it. By banning this symbol This symbol has much more power then it ever would unbanned and largely ignored. And those scared of lifting the ban are those the symbol has the most power over.

Nope Charlie Chaplin, that's where Hitler got the Idea for said mustache

You wouldn't think of Hitler? At all? Huh. Most people would. Hitler's a bit more well-known than Chaplin.


We had something similar we still fly the Confederate flag if we want to.

That was not all that similar. How many died, overall? Something like 600,000 across a few years? Yeah. Not that comparable to WWII.

Also note that no one alive during that time is alive now.

If you can not face/stand up to that symbol you are running from it and cowards of the worst degree.

Ooh, tough talk and bluster!

wow someone made a hyperbole greater then Godwin's law congrats I didn't think it was possible. Congratulations

...now you're just losin' it dude.

And Europeans never suffered the way African Americans did under the south in the US.

Yeah, if we pretend the Holocaust didn't happen your argument makes total sense.

They are still not afraid to face the battle flag of the confederacy.

The battle flag of the confederacy is not the most potent symbol of 20th century evil imaginable. It's not even the most potent symbol of 19th century evil. It's not the same thing.

Or the Klu Klux Klan and their bedsheets.

Remember when the KKK caused a war that killed unknown millions of people, devastated nearly every city and family, and tortured and mass-murdered millions of innocent people?

I don't either.

It is when you are not afraid to face something that you truly have power over it. By banning this symbol This symbol has much more power then it ever would unbanned and largely ignored.

You seem to think that the swastika being waved around in political rallies in Germany would somehow be ignored.

And those scared of lifting the ban are those the symbol has the most power over.

And they're cowards of the worst sort, too. I know. You said it before. You have bigger balls than the German government. We get it.

Yes, censorship limits freedom to a great extend.

And they're cowards of the worst sort, too. I know. You said it before. You have bigger balls than the German government. We get it.

Who doesnt?

Who doesnt?

The French government, presumably. But no one has bigger balls than me, no one! And it's not just because I have elephantitis of the testes.

The French government, presumably. But no one has bigger balls than me, no one! And it's not just because I have elephantitis of the testes.

And because you dont run from symbols so dey gotz no powah over you!!!11!

I think when the present generation of Germans get the vote, the ban will be lifted. You can tell that when they're impersonating Hitler and doing something very similar to THAT salute in the Street the Second World War doesn't have quite the negative impact on the teenagers of (at the very least North West) Germany.

While I'm here, TG ssek.

You wouldn't think of Hitler? At all? Huh. Most people would. Hitler's a bit more well-known than Chaplin.
Do you outlaw the mustache ??? please say you don't

That was not all that similar. How many died, overall? Something like 600,000 across a few years? Yeah. Not that comparable to WWII.

% wise they are very similar epically if you ignore eastern Europe. which does not out law the swastika. and in the south 50% of the population in some states was in slavery. Jews gypsies and poles never made up 50% of the population when they were enslaved in expanded wartime Germany.


Also note that no one alive during that time is alive now.

not many alive today who were alive in WWII.




Ooh, tough talk and bluster!

...now you're just losin' it dude.
I am sorry i didn't realize Hitler Cannibalized Grandmas.

Yeah, if we pretend the Holocaust didn't happen your argument makes total sense.

The battle flag of the confederacy is not the most potent symbol of 20th century evil imaginable. It's not even the most potent symbol of 19th century evil. It's not the same thing.

Remember when the KKK caused a war that killed unknown millions of people, devastated nearly every city and family, and tortured and mass-murdered millions of innocent people? the organization they represented did. They also spent the better part of 100 years trying to keep black people from voting and lynching and terrorizing blacks. id say much longer duration of terror then the 20 years of Hitler.


I don't either.

You seem to think that the swastika being waved around in political rallies in Germany would somehow be ignored.

Why ignore it put them on TV.
Let them be seen as the idiots they are.
this way teenagers wont think they are some cool secret thing to join, they will just think they are a bunch of dumb asses.
And they're cowards of the worst sort, too. I know. You said it before. You have bigger balls than the German government. We get it.

Credit where credit is due. the Africans Americans. Ive never had to face that sort of discrimination or stand against the symbol of it. Or deal with the memory of it as told to me by my grand parents.

And because you dont run from symbols so dey gotz no powah over you!!!11!

Yes, but I mainly don't run because my enormous testicles prevent me from doing anything more than sort of wobble.


Seriously, I'm not advocating iconoclasm or anything, but in this one case I think the ban was justified, and shouldn't be lifted. Until they decide to, anyway, but I definitely don't see it right to call them cowards because they haven't. Jeez.

And as Weccanfield points out that'll probably be within a generation.

But this ban is a form of censorship on free speech. The question I ask: should Germany abandon this ban?

Yes.

In my opinion: An absolute most certain yes. Running away from history does not help anyone, and suppressing speech in this way only serves to strengthen the ideals that are being oppressed. Only through open, clear discussion and such can such ideals actually be truly revealed for what they are. I understand that Germany is ashamed of this part of its history, but Germany needs to get beyond it, I say. (Yes, I realize I'm not a German and therefore don't have any true concept of how it must feel to be a citizen of a country that had one of the most vilified regimes in history. Not the point.)

Also, it means they likely miss out on good movies.

*nodnod*

=)

We had something similar we still fly the Confederate flag if we want to.

Think it's worth mentioning that the CSA flag is flown at a nearby greasy spoon. Here at least it's less a symbol of racsism and more a symbol of BBQ time.

I'm normally for free speech, but certain origins, such as Nazism, should be banned.

Free speech, so long as its speech you consider ok, then?

Somehow....that doesn't seem like free speech at all.

Fascism - have it all you want. But if you allow Nazism in the open - they'll march to provoke.

I'm sure that's quite often part of the reason the KKK marches. They still have just as much right to speak their minds as anyone else.

And if you deny the Holocaust in a country that was affected by it, you should go to jail, becuase in doing so you are inciting hatred, on both sides that could lead to severe consequences. You may have freedom of speech, but try yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater. The ACLU btw lost a third of its membership for supporting the Nazis; I was surprised that they survived.

You really don't see the difference between yelling "FIRE!" in a theatre (a situation in which any reasonable person would head for the door in fear) and speaking your viewpoint on history?


We had something similar we still fly the Confederate flag if we want to.
Think it's worth mentioning that the CSA flag is flown at a nearby greasy spoon. Here at least it's less a symbol of racsism and more a symbol of BBQ time.

Does traitor BBQ taste better? =)

Does traitor BBQ taste better? =)

Nope. It is vastly inferior to traitor of traitor's BBQ, if you know what I mean.

But then I am more of a curry person myself.

Yes, censorship limits freedom to a great extend.
Aye, in this case the freedom to show support for a disgusting regime in public, so it's all good.

Also, it means they likely miss out on good movies.
Whut?

As to the OPs question: I think the laws can stay just as they are, thankyouverymuch.

Germany has a long-standing ban on Nazi symbolism, a rather understandable ban given that Germany under the Nazis was possibly the worst regime in world history, potentially second only to the Soviet Union under Iosef Stalin. (Depending upon who you ask.)

But this ban is a form of censorship on free speech. The question I ask: should Germany abandon this ban?

In my opinion: An absolute most certain yes. Running away from history does not help anyone, and suppressing speech in this way only serves to strengthen the ideals that are being oppressed. Only through open, clear discussion and such can such ideals actually be truly revealed for what they are. I understand that Germany is ashamed of this part of its history, but Germany needs to get beyond it, I say. (Yes, I realize I'm not a German and therefore don't have any true concept of how it must feel to be a citizen of a country that had one of the most vilified regimes in history. Not the point.)

I'll dig into independent responses in this thread in a bit, but first let me give my overarching thoughts.

I'm no expert on Germany, German history, or German law. I come from an American perspective that favors free speech. I believe in the wisdom of the following two quotes:

First, the persuasive wisdom of Oliver Wendell Holmes in his dissent in Abrams v. United States (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/250/616.html ), 250 US 616, 630 (1919):

Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition. To allow opposition by speech seems to indicate that you think the speech impotent, as when a man says that he has squared the circle, or that you do not care whole heartedly for the result, or that you doubt either your power or your premises. But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas-that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment. Every year if not every day we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based upon imperfect knowledge. While that experiment is part of our system I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country.

And Justice Brandeis, concurring in Whitney v. California (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=274&invol=357#377), 274 U.S. 357, 377 (1927)(emphasis added):

Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears. To justify suppression of free speech there must be reasonable ground to fear that serious evil will result if free speech is practiced. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the danger apprehended is imminent. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the evil to be prevented is a serious one. Every denunciation of existing law tends in some measure to increase the probability that there will be violation of it. Condonation of a breach enhances the probability. Expressions of approval add to the probability. Propagation of the criminal state of mind by teaching syndicalism increases it. Advocacy of lawbreaking heightens it still further. But even advocacy of violation, however reprehensible morally, is not a justification for denying free speech where the advocacy falls short of incitement and there is nothing to indicate that the advocacy would be immediately acted on. The wide difference between advocacy and incitement, between preparation and attempt, between assembling and conspiracy, must be borne in mind. In order to support a finding of clear and present danger it must be shown either that immediate serious violence was to be expected or was advocated, or that the past conduct furnished reason to believe that such advocacy was then contemplated. Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence. Only an emergency can justify repression. Such must be the rule if authority is to be reconciled with freedom. Such, in my opinion, is the command of the Constitution.

That said, I fully understand that these are U.S.-centric quotes about the U.S. Constitution. But I believe the underlying philosophy that the marketplace of ideas is the best remedy for bad ideas is true.

And, based on my limited perspective, I would apply this philosophy even to Nazi symbollism in Germany.

Well you say it's not the point, but I think it is. The Germans elect their governments, and those governments continue the ban. It's obviously not exactly unpopular with them. If they decide that this one limitation of free speech (I don't think it's the only one, in Germany, I mean you can't yell fire falsely either) is OK, then I do too, and that's pretty much that.

Personally, yes, it'd be nice if we could have total free speech, but that's an ideal, not a practical manifesto. Other things - the will of the people - have to be taken into account first.

So your idea is that so long as we shouldn't have absolute free speech, any limit on free speech is OK? Then there is no such thing as free speech.


To me they are the same as the Confederate flag. I don't see it as a bad thing and don't mind people flying it. Most people I know don't consider it a bad thing and most just associate it with southern pride and southern culture. Since I'm not personally Southern, I don't use it, but meh...I have no problem with it.

OK, I was going to let this slide, but I can't help but mention that the Confederate flag is a symbol of treason, racial oppression, and most of all SLAVERY. Everybody should have a problem with it.

I'm normally for free speech, but certain origins, such as Nazism, should be banned. Fascism - have it all you want. But if you allow Nazism in the open - they'll march to provoke. I am ok with the Swastika, (since it's origin predates Nazism) and the use of the word Aryan (again since it's origin predates Nazism) but to allow combinations that are clearly a symbol of Nazism is inappropriate. And why's everyone talking about Jews being killed, Nazis killed 6 million Jews and over 20 million people of Slavic origin (not counting those fighting in the Red Army). And if you deny the Holocaust in a country that was affected by it, you should go to jail, becuase in doing so you are inciting hatred, on both sides that could lead to severe consequences. You may have freedom of speech, but try yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater. The ACLU btw lost a third of its membership for supporting the Nazis; I was surprised that they survived.

Another poster who argues that because we limit some free speech, there is nothing to stop us from banning any free speech.

I think some of you don't understand the concepts of rights and freedoms very well.

Think it's worth mentioning that the CSA flag is flown at a nearby greasy spoon. Here at least it's less a symbol of racsism and more a symbol of BBQ time.

Everywhere it is a symbol of racism, treason, and SLAVERY.

I would not ban it, mind you, but I do despise it and think everyone should scorn it.

Whut?

From what I understand, movies that use swastikas or other Nazi imagery are banned in Germany. And there are plenty of good movies that happen to contain Nazis and/or Nazi imagery.

As to the OPs question: I think the laws can stay just as they are, thankyouverymuch.

Meh. It's your country. If you guys don't want free speech, it's not like it matters what I think.

From what I understand, movies that use swastikas or other Nazi imagery are banned in Germany. And there are plenty of good movies that happen to contain Nazis and/or Nazi imagery.
No, what is banned is the spreading and public use of insignia of organizations that are illegal because they promote goals that run counter to our constitution - explicitly exempt from that are cases in which those insignia are used in the context of education, art, science, history or similar.

We're cautious, not retarded.

Meh. Just don't claim your country values free speech, then.
Of course. Clearly the American interpretation of freedom of opinion is the only valid one; constitutionally guaranteed freedom of opinion limited by some very few and very carefully considered laws is clearly not freedom of opinion at all.

We may not have grown up in Nazi Germany, or been alive during WWII, but that doesn't mean our loved ones weren't. My grandpa and his brothers were in concentration camps, although we're not Jewish. I still don't think Nazi symbolism should be banned. Let's not pretend those of us who think the ban should be lifted couldn't possibly have any connection to what happened all those years ago, i've heard the stories my grandpa told my mom, i'm not oblivious.

I personally prefer to know where people stand. If someone is a neo-Nazi, i would rather know, so i can decide for myself how to deal with that person and how to respond to them. I would rather challenge their beliefs out in the open.

I can understand why the German government has this ban, and i respect them for the fact that they own up to their history and feel shame for what the Nazis did, but today's generation is not responsible for what previous ones did. The current government is not to blame for the heinous crimes committed over 60 years ago. We should never, ever forget, but no one should let it control how the Germans are viewed today. To quote someone (i can't remember who) "we can learn from the past, but we can't live in it."

I'm not German though, and it's not my decision, i won't lose any sleep if they never lift the ban, i just stated how i personally feel about banning things like that.

So your idea is that so long as we shouldn't have absolute free speech, any limit on free speech is OK?

No, but as long as we're not employing a system of absolutely free speech, I don't see why that should be the standard to be completely committed to in all situations.

Then there is no such thing as free speech.

Not absolutely, nope. There are always limits, some good, some bad - this is one I think good.

Germany has a long-standing ban on Nazi symbolism, a rather understandable ban given that Germany under the Nazis was possibly the worst regime in world history, potentially second only to the Soviet Union under Iosef Stalin. (Depending upon who you ask.)
True.

But this ban is a form of censorship on free speech.
So? Personal attacks and slander are also subjected to law. What's the problem?

The question I ask: should Germany abandon this ban?
No. You can tell the idiots apart from the rest without them using swastikas etc. easily enough.

Those symbols were banned for a good reason. I don't see what good would come from legalizing them again.

In my opinion: An absolute most certain yes. Running away from history does not help anyone, and suppressing speech in this way only serves to strengthen the ideals that are being oppressed.
Germany is one of the few countries in the world that definitely does not run away from its history. Quite the contrary. I don't know any other country that makes its population as aware of its past as we do.

Besides, I don't see why suppressing hate speech is such a bad thing.

Only through open, clear discussion and such can such ideals actually be truly revealed for what they are.
Right... only that those who would use your free speech would not to discuss anything with you but rather sprout their nazi propaganda and then kick your teeth in for the hell of it.

You cannot have a decent discussion with nazis.

I understand that Germany is ashamed of this part of its history, but Germany needs to get beyond it, I say. (Yes, I realize I'm not a German and therefore don't have any true concept of how it must feel to be a citizen of a country that had one of the most vilified regimes in history. Not the point.)
You truly understand little of how I feel as a German and what I feel about our past.

And we would be another step beyond it if people like you would stop bringing it up, thank you very much.
(The point is that we live a pretty normal life in the middle of Europe but are constantly reminded by some of our neighbors, friends, and allies of the darkest chapter of our past. Again, whenever you want to piss of a German, just compare him with the nazi regime. I really wish people would stop doing that!)

I don't feel suppressed, I can say whatever I'm convinced needs saying, I agree with the restriction of those parts of "free speech" that are limited, yet I can have a true and honest discussion, even including banned symbols, when it serves a scientific or educational purpose.

Last but not least I honestly don't see why it is anybodies' but the Germans' business what we do or do not ban.

There is a difference between banning Nazi symbolism and banning anything that has to do with Nazis at all, and it is my understanding that Germany does the latter. If you pretend history doesn't exist, you can't learn from it.

There is a difference between banning Nazi symbolism and banning anything that has to do with Nazis at all, and it is my understanding that Germany does the latter. If you pretend history doesn't exist, you can't learn from it.

There's also a difference between both and "pretending history doesn't exist." Honestly, you're making the entire German people out to be Holocaust deniers.

True.


So? Personal attacks and slander are also subjected to law. What's the problem?


No. You can tell the idiots apart from the rest without them using swastikas etc. easily enough.

Those symbols were banned for a good reason. I don't see what good would come from legalizing them again.


Germany is one of the few countries in the world that definitely does not run away from its history. Quite the contrary. I don't know any other country that makes its population as aware of its past as we do.

Besides, I don't see why suppressing hate speech is such a bad thing.


Right... only that those who would use your free speech would not to discuss anything with you but rather sprout their nazi propaganda and then kick your teeth in for the hell of it.

You cannot have a decent discussion with nazis.


You truly understand little of how I feel as a German and what I feel about our past.

And we would be another step beyond it if people like you would stop bringing it up, thank you very much.
(The point is that we live a pretty normal life in the middle of Europe but are constantly reminded by some of our neighbors, friends, and allies of the darkest chapter of our past. Again, whenever you want to piss of a German, just compare him with the nazi regime. I really wish people would stop doing that!)

I don't feel suppressed, I can say whatever I'm convinced needs saying, I agree with the restriction of those parts of "free speech" that are limited, yet I can have a true and honest discussion, even including banned symbols, when it serves a scientific or educational purpose.

Last but not least I honestly don't see why it is anybodies' but the Germans' business what we do or do not ban.

Fair enough. That's your opinion.

But let me tell you that in my opinion, you are doing yourselves a disservice by banning the symbolism, and you may yet see yourselves paying for the mistake.

I hope it doesn't come to that.

There is a difference between banning Nazi symbolism and banning anything that has to do with Nazis at all, and it is my understanding that Germany does the latter. If you pretend history doesn't exist, you can't learn from it.
Please elaborate what you mean with "anything that has to do with Nazis at all". Sounds like nonsense to me.

It's definitely not that Germany pretends that 1933-1945 simply didn't happen - the opposite is the case. Every single week some newspaper, weekly magazine, television channel will have some educational piece on nazis including pictures and movies and at school we covered the topic various times at various ages. Almost ad nauseam. Except that it is indeed an interesting time period.

Fair enough. That's your opinion.

But let me tell you that in my opinion, you are doing yourselves a disservice by banning the symbolism, and you may yet see yourselves paying for the mistake.

I hope it doesn't come to that.
What exactly do you think it would achieve to legalize said symbolism?

You'd have new idiots sporting the old crap, relativizing what had happened back then by pointing out that since it's legal to use the symbolism, it can't have been all that bad.

How that would help a society is a mystery to me.

Besides, I honestly don't know any German who's unhappy with how our freedom of speech is limited in certain small areas. But I do know that those who are are those who would be misusing their "right", and ultimately, get rid of freedom of speech altogether, those who disagree with our state and want to disband it.

That's the reasoning behind my agreement with a limited freedom of speech. It doesn't interfere with anything I uphold and stand for.

No, what is banned is the spreading and public use of insignia of organizations that are illegal because they promote goals that run counter to our constitution - explicitly exempt from that are cases in which those insignia are used in the context of education, art, science, history or similar.

....which would be why Saving Private Ryan couldn't be shown there a few years back? There were news stories on that at the time.

And, from what I understand, The Producers can't travel there either.

Of course. Clearly the American interpretation of freedom of opinion is the only valid one;

It's not a matter of interpretation. The words mean what they mean. If the government is telling you what opinions you can and cannot express, you do not have freedom of speech.

constitutionally guaranteed freedom of opinion limited by some very few and very carefully considered laws is clearly not freedom of opinion at all.

No, it isn't. Freedom of opinion doesn't mean "freedom unless we don't like your opinion."

So? Personal attacks and slander are also subjected to law. What's the problem?

The difference being that the onus is then on the slandered person to demonstrate that harm has occurred.

You cause direct harm, you are subject to law.

Besides, I don't see why suppressing hate speech is such a bad thing.

You let your country decide what speech is and is not allowed. That is a bad thing.

The government shouldn't be there to police your opinions.

Right... only that those who would use your free speech would not to discuss anything with you but rather sprout their nazi propaganda and then kick your teeth in for the hell of it.

Kicking your teeth in would be assault, and therefore clear harm.

Last but not least I honestly don't see why it is anybodies' but the Germans' business what we do or do not ban.

In the end, it isn't. But anyone can have an opinion.

And in some countries, we're free to express those opinions.


What exactly do you think it would achieve to legalize said symbolism?

Actual free speech?

You'd have new idiots sporting the old crap, relativizing what had happened back then by pointing out that since it's legal to use the symbolism, it can't have been all that bad.

They can try, but most people know better. The people who don't already agree with them anyways.

How that would help a society is a mystery to me.

Freedom is a good unto itself.

Besides, I honestly don't know any German who's unhappy with how our freedom of speech is limited in certain small areas. But I do know that those who are are those who would be misusing their "right", and ultimately, get rid of freedom of speech altogether, those who disagree with our state and want to disband it.

If you want to claim that you even have free speech, you have to allow people who think your state should be disbanded.

Otherwise, what you have is "government approved speech".

It isn't misusing a right to express an unpopular opinion. In fact, rights are only necessary when your opinion/action/etc. is unpopular. If it's popular, no one is going to try and get the government to go after you for it.

That's the reasoning behind my agreement with a limited freedom of speech. It doesn't interfere with anything I uphold and stand for.

Good to know that freedom only matters when it directly affects you.

I guess I shouldn't worry about the rights of homosexuals then, since I'm not one?

Or the rights of Muslims/Jews/Hindus/etc.? After all, I'm not a member of any of those religions.

I also shouldn't worry about the rights of black or latino people, right?

All that matters is that I can do what I want to do. Right?

We're cautious, not retarded.

And that's why, when Half-life was released in Germany, all the human enemies were changed to be robots--spouting oil instead of blood, gibs replaced by machine bits, etc.?

Please elaborate what you mean with "anything that has to do with Nazis at all". Sounds like nonsense to me.

It's definitely not that Germany pretends that 1933-1945 simply didn't happen - the opposite is the case. Every single week some newspaper, weekly magazine, television channel will have some educational piece on nazis including pictures and movies and at school we covered the topic various times at various ages. Almost ad nauseam. Except that it is indeed an interesting time period.

So isn't it more like pretending that 1933-1945 is the only significant event in its history?

--Snip--

Epic Win in a can.

Epic Win in a can.

*accepts praise*

*cautiously adds on the fact that I'm rather bitchy right now and also a bit tipsy, and may or may not come across as more bitchy than usual*

*has very little gauge of how bitchy the aforementioned post may have been.*

....which would be why Saving Private Ryan couldn't be shown there a few years back? There were news stories on that at the time.
What? I have never ever heard of that, I googled for it but couldn't find anything, according to IMDb it had a normal release date (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120815/releaseinfo) and I personally saw it in the theater when it came out, like the rest of the country (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120815/business). In fact, I can't remember any major movie that was not shown here because of anything like that.

And, from what I understand, The Producers can't travel there either.
Not true. Of the top of my head, it has been staged in Berlin before. Also, the movie of the same name played here just like everywhere else.
I found a review of a stage production in Austria that correctly remarked that if the play hadn't been staged a lot in Germany so far it's because people would react sensitively to the whole thing (joking about Hitler is a thing we're only just getting comfortable with, it used to be considered very bad taste and tactless).

So, seriously, your impression of what can and cannot be shown here is really wrong, I'm sorry.

It's not a matter of interpretation. The words mean what they mean. If the government is telling you what opinions you can and cannot express, you do not have freedom of speech.



No, it isn't. Freedom of opinion doesn't mean "freedom unless we don't like your opinion."
This is something I even have agreed with my boyfriend is something we'll have to agree to disagree on, and also I just missed Obama being declared the winner, so I'll just say we'll have to disagree and stop here now.

What exactly do you think it would achieve to legalize said symbolism?

You'd have new idiots sporting the old crap, relativizing what had happened back then by pointing out that since it's legal to use the symbolism, it can't have been all that bad.

How that would help a society is a mystery to me.

Besides, I honestly don't know any German who's unhappy with how our freedom of speech is limited in certain small areas. But I do know that those who are are those who would be misusing their "right", and ultimately, get rid of freedom of speech altogether, those who disagree with our state and want to disband it.

That's the reasoning behind my agreement with a limited freedom of speech. It doesn't interfere with anything I uphold and stand for.

What does it achieve to limit the free speech? How does it help at all?

I'm not seeing how it does anything to help. If what you say is right, and nothing substantial would change anyway, why continue to ban?

....which would be why Saving Private Ryan couldn't be shown there a few years back? There were news stories on that at the time.
Utter nonsense. I watched it at the movies together with a bunch of friends as soon as it came out.

The movie was rated "16", and there was talk about raising it to "18" because of the amount of violence portrayed in the first 30 minutes. (Which are, by the way, the only thing that makes the movie worth watching - anything else that happened afterwards is typical US-Hollywood bravado. Band of Brothers is so much better in comparison!)

And, from what I understand, The Producers can't travel there either.
That's not true, either. Not coming here does not equal not being allowed to come here.

Tackling a topic like the 3rd Reich in a comical way is a difficult thing in the first place; making it good and worth watching is another.

The 1968 movie, however, used to be banned back in the day. It's been re-evaluated since then. Keep in mind, when it came out, people were still coping with what had happened.

It's not a matter of interpretation. The words mean what they mean. If the government is telling you what opinions you can and cannot express, you do not have freedom of speech.
Some publicly voiced opinions constitute a crime here. What about those, then?

The difference being that the onus is then on the slandered person to demonstrate that harm has occurred.

You cause direct harm, you are subject to law.
Voicing "opinions" like denying the holocaust is a direct harm to society, hence people who do it are subject to law.

You let your country decide what speech is and is not allowed. That is a bad thing.
Not if you agree with the government's stance, whereas the government here is made up of elected officials in free and democratic elections. So, it's not the country but its population that decided each time it goes to cast a vote.

The government shouldn't be there to police your opinions.
True. But in this case, the government makes sure that those forces who would get rid of the state and its laws and our constitution do not come into play.
The government ensures that I keep my rights granted to me by our constitution. It might not be perfect, but then again, what is?

Given that it's a little unsatisfactory to have to resort to limiting free speech in some areas so the rest of it is guaranteed and the system of the state stays intact, that's still the lesser evil in my book.

Kicking your teeth in would be assault, and therefore clear harm.
Yeah. But that's what you get when you try to argue with nazis.

Your freedom of speech won't do you any good when you can't talk anymore, and it would definitely not do you any good should those guys ever come to power - because freedom of speech would be the first thing to go. Limited or unlimited.

In the end, it isn't. But anyone can have an opinion.

And in some countries, we're free to express those opinions.
In the end, it actually is, what with sovereignty and such, eh?
Actual free speech?
Again, I have yet to encounter a situation in which I felt like I needed to deny the holocaust or call for an annulment of our constitution or disbanding the state.

They can try, but most people know better. The people who don't already agree with them anyways.
So why give them the forum and satisfaction?

Freedom is a good unto itself.
Freedom is only good when it is protected from those who would abolish it.

Here, this protection includes minimally limiting the freedom of speech so that I can actually enjoy the rest of it.

If you want to claim that you even have free speech, you have to allow people who think your state should be disbanded.

Otherwise, what you have is "government approved speech".
Oh, people are entitled to have that opinion. They're also allowed to voice it. They're just not allowed to incite others to act upon it or act upon it themselves. There's a huge difference.

It isn't misusing a right to express an unpopular opinion. In fact, rights are only necessary when your opinion/action/etc. is unpopular. If it's popular, no one is going to try and get the government to go after you for it.
So we're treating those who threaten our society unfairly. Huh. Big deal. Show me a place where that doesn't happen.

As long as the majority of the population thinks differently, as expressed in their representation in the government, that's just the way it's gonna be!
[QUOTE]Good to know that freedom only matters when it directly affects you.

I guess I shouldn't worry about the rights of homosexuals then, since I'm not one?

Or the rights of Muslims/Jews/Hindus/etc.? After all, I'm not a member of any of those religions.

I also shouldn't worry about the rights of black or latino people, right?

All that matters is that I can do what I want to do. Right?
I've read my Niemöller, too. And mind you, the topic was legalizing nazi symbols. That's what I was talking about, nothing else.

Again, all of those (religion/sexual orientation/gender/age/heritage/etc.) are goods granted by, included in, and protected by our constitution, our highest good that needs defending against those who would get rid of it all.

And you should get off your high horse - because what good is your freedom of speech when your government doesn't even follow your own laws and constitution and those who actually might speak up are not heard should they voice their opinion? Nada.

We've learned from our past and as a people decided that we're willing to limit some of our rights for the stability of our society. You can have as much freedom here as you like want as long as you don't interfere with the freedom I enjoy. Being protected from those who would take away that freedom is part of the deal of living here. As is being subjected to those limitations. After all, you're free to leave if you don't like that - or change the system should the majority of the people agree with you.

And that's why, when Half-life was released in Germany, all the human enemies were changed to be robots--spouting oil instead of blood, gibs replaced by machine bits, etc.?
It has to do with who the game was aimed to be sold to, which is not adults but children. Like putting an "R" on movies where you come from.

So isn't it more like pretending that 1933-1945 is the only significant event in its history?
Uhm, huh? We cover our history from the stone age up to the modern day and back. Yes, there is a certain amount of time and effort placed on the 3rd Reich in order to educate people about the past and the dangers that those ideologies carry with them, and to allow them to appreciate what they have with our constitution and society. But you can't deny that this era has had a tremendous influence on the German people, the European peoples, and world history.

But neither is the topic excluded, nor is it inclusively treated in history classes. That's simply wrong to assume.

Epic Win in a can.
Really? Then I have to disagree.

*accepts praise*

*cautiously adds on the fact that I'm rather bitchy right now and also a bit tipsy, and may or may not come across as more bitchy than usual*

*has very little gauge of how bitchy the aforementioned post may have been.*
Your bitch-meter reads very high.
What? I have never ever heard of that, I googled for it but couldn't find anything, according to IMDb it had a normal release date (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120815/releaseinfo) and I personally saw it in the theater when it came out, like the rest of the country (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120815/business). In fact, I can't remember any major movie that was not shown here because of anything like that.
It's utter nonsense.

Not true. Of the top of my head, it has been staged in Berlin before. Also, the movie of the same name played here just like everywhere else.
I found a review of a stage production in Austria that correctly remarked that if the play hadn't been staged a lot in Germany so far it's because people would react sensitively to the whole thing (joking about Hitler is a thing we're only just getting comfortable with, it used to be considered very bad taste and tactless).
Das äst rächtik!

So, seriously, your impression of what can and cannot be shown here is really wrong, I'm sorry.
I ain't sorry. I just laugh at the fools!

This is something I even have agreed with my boyfriend is something we'll have to agree to disagree on
Good call.
What does it achieve to limit the free speech? How does it help at all?
It helped create and sustain a stable, democratic, peaceful society in Germany for the last 63 years (and counting). Not too bad, eh?

I'm not seeing how it does anything to help. If what you say is right, and nothing substantial would change anyway, why continue to ban?
Then you're lost.

For me, it's "Hey, it works.", "Better safe than sorry.", "Don't fix it if it ain't broken.", and "Never change a running system."

*snip movie talk*

You probably know better than I do on that. I remember news stories, but can't find them now, so....yeah.

Some publicly voiced opinions constitute a crime here. What about those, then?

They shouldn't be a crime any more than any other publicly voiced opinion.

Actions might be harmful. Opinions are not.

Voicing "opinions" like denying the holocaust is a direct harm to society, hence people who do it are subject to law.

"Harm to society" is a subjective assessment. One could just as well argue that daring to challenge the current administration is "harm to society". Or suggesting that certain socialized programs shouldn't be is "harm to society."

Not if you agree with the government's stance, whereas the government here is made up of elected officials in free and democratic elections. So, it's not the country but its population that decided each time it goes to cast a vote.

There are some things that shouldn't be decided by a majority vote.

We call that "tyranny of the majority."

The government ensures that I keep my rights granted to me by our constitution. It might not be perfect, but then again, what is?

It can do that without infringing on the rights of those who seek to voice their opinions.

Given that it's a little unsatisfactory to have to resort to limiting free speech in some areas so the rest of it is guaranteed and the system of the state stays intact, that's still the lesser evil in my book.

I disagree. I don't think limiting free speech in this manner guarantees any freedoms at all. All it does is infringe upon them.

In the end, it actually is, what with sovereignty and such, eh?

.....Sovereignty would mean that, in the end, it isn't. It's only the business of the Germans.

But others can certainly have opinions.

Again, I have yet to encounter a situation in which I felt like I needed to deny the holocaust or call for an annulment of our constitution or disbanding the state.

Freedom isn't all about you. It's about everyone.

So why give them the forum and satisfaction?

Freedom. They have all the same rights you do.

Freedom is only good when it is protected from those who would abolish it.

You can protect it without policing opinions.

Here, this protection includes minimally limiting the freedom of speech so that I can actually enjoy the rest of it.

No, it doesn't. It doesn't advance that goal at all. Quite the opposite in fact.

Because if you can vote to limit the free speech of others, they can vote to limit your free speech.

Oh, people are entitled to have that opinion. They're also allowed to voice it. They're just not allowed to incite others to act upon it or act upon it themselves. There's a huge difference.

Freedom of speech means you can voice your opinion. You can even try to convince others to agree with you.

You obviously can't commit other crimes in the process, such as assault.

So we're treating those who threaten our society unfairly. Huh. Big deal. Show me a place where that doesn't happen.

You're treating citizens of your society who are merely expressing an opinion unfairly.

No matter how unsavory their views might be, they have just as much right to your society as you do.

They may be complete and total assholes, but they are still entitled to their own opinions and just as much freedom to voice them as you have.

As long as the majority of the population thinks differently, as expressed in their representation in the government, that's just the way it's gonna be!

In other words, only majority approved speech is accepted.


And you should get off your high horse - because what good is your freedom of speech when your government doesn't even follow your own laws and constitution and those who actually might speak up are not heard should they voice their opinion? Nada.

My government does things I don't agree with. So does yours.

So do most governments, come to think of it.

What's your point?

[quyote]We've learned from our past and as a people decided that we're willing to limit some of our rights for the stability of our society. You can have as much freedom here as you like want as long as you don't interfere with the freedom I enjoy.[/quote]

.....unless you want to voice a rather unpopular opinion.

Someone expressing an unpopular opinion that I vehemently disagree with doesn't infringe upon my rights in any way. What makes you think it infringes upon yours?

Being protected from those who would take away that freedom is part of the deal of living here. As is being subjected to those limitations. After all, you're free to leave if you don't like that - or change the system should the majority of the people agree with you.

Ah, the mantra spouted by all who would remove freedom from the people.

Then you're lost.

For me, it's "Hey, it works.", "Better safe than sorry.", "Don't fix it if it ain't broken.", and "Never change a running system."

This argument could be made for pretty much every infringement of rights by any government.

It has to do with who the game was aimed to be sold to, which is not adults but children. Like putting an "R" on movies where you come from.

Really? I have a hard time believing that Half-Life was aimed at children.

Uhm, huh? We cover our history from the stone age up to the modern day and back. Yes, there is a certain amount of time and effort placed on the 3rd Reich in order to educate people about the past and the dangers that those ideologies carry with them, and to allow them to appreciate what they have with our constitution and society. But you can't deny that this era has had a tremendous influence on the German people, the European peoples, and world history.

But neither is the topic excluded, nor is it inclusively treated in history classes. That's simply wrong to assume.

Your post seemed to indicate that that period is treated with more importance than virtually any other point in history. I would be glad to know this isn't true.

It helped create and sustain a stable, democratic, peaceful society in Germany for the last 63 years (and counting). Not too bad, eh?


Then you're lost.

For me, it's "Hey, it works.", "Better safe than sorry.", "Don't fix it if it ain't broken.", and "Never change a running system."

Please. What created a stable, democratic, peaceful society in Germany was the support of the rest of Europe, the support of the United States, and the strength of the German people to get past the stain of Hitler. The ban did nothing to help achieve that, and doesn't do anything now.

Your bitch-meter reads very high.

Erm.....footrubs make me less bitchy?

Well, usually at least. I'm not entirely certain why I'm bitchy tonight, so I can't be certain.

But, hey, it's worth a try!

Erm.....footrubs make me less bitchy?

Well, usually at least. I'm not entirely certain why I'm bitchy tonight, so I can't be certain.

But, hey, it's worth a try!
To quote from Pulp Fiction, "I'm the foot-fucking-master!"

(How'd you know I'm into attractive feet and an expert at footrubs?)

To quote from Pulp Fiction, "I'm the foot-fucking-master!"

(How'd you know I'm into attractive feet and an expert at footrubs?)

GM! =)

(which you should totally come back to sometime)

Really? I have a hard time believing that Half-Life was aimed at children.
It's the attitude of German legislators to computer games in general. It's a little bit like nudity in the US.

They have this board that rates games and movies in Germany. It does so quite strictly, and violence is generally frowned upon. When things are bad enough (and they considered Half-Life to be that bad) they can place games on an index. These games then can't be advertised or displayed in a way that would likely expose minors to them. That means that if you are over 18, you are in theory able to go to the store, ask for the game which is stored under the counter and get it without much trouble.

Unfortunately that kills the business prospects of selling it for most stores, so actually finding the game will be difficult. In order to get around that, games manufacturers will make German versions which usually have the offending content removed. So in the case of Half-Life, the English version went on sale and was around for a week or so. When that initial batch had been sold, the German version with the robots had been shipped, and stores had no reason to keep ordering the English one.

Of course, my friends and I had one or two English versions and burned the shit out of them so nobody actually played the German one.

Two more quotes I think are relevant to the question of why free speech is to be valued in and of itself and that laws seeking to oppress certain opinions because of their content are a bad idea:

"No more fatuous chimera has ever infested the brain than that you can control opinions by law or direct belief by statute, and no more pernicious sentiment ever tormented the heart than the barbarous desire to do so. The field of inquiry should remain open, and the right of debate must be regarded as a sacred right."

"Without an unfettered press, without liberty of speech, all of the outward forms and structures of free institutions are a sham, a pretense -- the sheerest mockery. If the press is not free; if speech is not independent and untrammeled; if the mind is shackled or made impotent through fear, it makes no difference under what form of government you live, you are a subject and not a citizen."

--William E. Borah, (1865-1940) U. S. Senator

(I know from the reception my last set of quotes got that this will probably be ignored, but I don't really care. :wink:)

(I know from the reception my last set of quotes got that this will probably be ignored, but I don't really care. :wink:)

I didn't ignore them, I just don't agree. I know where you're coming from, I entirely understand your viewpoint expressed in the quotes, I know it's hard to make a consistent argument for the German position in a theoretical/philosophical discussion (well, it's for me) - but I still disagree with you because I see every day that our concept of freedom of opinion applied to the real world works just fine and it drives me nuts when people say that we don't have freedom of opinion just because we've decided that inciting racial hatred is not covered under said freedom.
It's not like we're the only country that doesn't agree with the US on this and it's not like the US doesn't come from their own historical background in forming its concept of freedom of speech and it certainly isn't like Americans don't have blind spots for where their laws curtail freedom of speech (obscenity and nudity comes to mind), so it just irks me that while we're both coming to this with our strong, set notions, we can accept yours but you always make us out to be a self-imposed tyranny straight out of 1984.


I think this whole topic is a difficult one to discuss and one that is probably almost impossible to come to an agreement on. I was reminded of this article (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/12/us/12hate.html) - fittingly called "American Exception".

Why did the German cross the road?
He was only carrying out his orders.

But seriously now folks, I'm half Jewish and I have forgiven the Germans. They are not responsible for the holocaust. On the issue of banning the nazi stuff (including those sexy little black SS uniforms.... I'm with Kyronea and the othe liberals on that. Repressing this crap only produces a thriving underground.
But it's not an easy question for Germans because there a still a lot of Nazis there - especially in the old East Germany.
I think that Germany is prominent in the EU - it can relax a bit. The Germany of 2008 is a far cry from the Germany of 1938. There are probably a lot more blacj\kshirts in Russia now than there are (or will be ) in Germany.

Exits singing "Springtimefor Hitler and Germany...Winter for Poland und France"....

Stop the ban, I say. Talk about it. I mean here in America we have so many rappers/hip-hoppers singing about killing women, cops, whities....their own families even....I haven't heard of any anti-type lyrics sung by "normal" artists....let the Germans SEE the symbol again.. a constant reminder of what their grandparents allowed themselves to become....and a warning to the younger generation not to be hatists.....unlike here in America...where our young are told through rap/hip-hop to kill, rape,....women...whites....cops...and do drugs....and laugh about it..

But we (me) got to let them....censorship is wrong......

Yeah, this is Germany's biggest problem. Not the fact that their last election ended in a draw, not the fact that the East isn't integrated, is this.

I really hated rappers who dressed up with bling and spread lots of bad attitude arounf. But I guess it was a reaction to the bad politics of Bush's America. They sure had bad values though ...not to mention a lot of bad music.
Fortunately fashions change.
By the way "Pissedoffwhiteman" is a pretty rappy name in itself. It's a little provoccative and some people might misinterpret you.

Talk about it.

I just got back from Germany and I can say, this is certainly not their problem. It could almost be characterized that they don't shut up about it. I can honestly say that they own that part of their history in a way that we can't say about our own scars like slavery or the genocide of the native people. (I'm not saying we don't talk about it, I'm just saying that the way the German people have owned a difficult and unflattering to put it mildly part of their history out strides our own attempts easily.)

It probably should be lifted because it's a part of their history and their history should be preserved.Makes no sense. History is preserved, it's running around at a protest with a Nazi flag that's forbidden.
I think when the present generation of Germans get the vote, the ban will be lifted. I highly doubt it.

Fair enough. That's your opinion.

But let me tell you that in my opinion, you are doing yourselves a disservice by banning the symbolism, and you may yet see yourselves paying for the mistake.

I hope it doesn't come to that.How? What exactly is being done that makes it that much of a problem?
Also, it means they likely miss out on good movies.
....which would be why Saving Private Ryan couldn't be shown there a few years back? There were news stories on that at the time.

And, from what I understand, The Producers can't travel there either.I have the feeling you've been lied to. I mean even Indiana Jones gets shown over here, and the Nazis in that are a whole lot less historically accurate than in Saving Private Ryan (and that's been featured on TV).

And that's why, when Half-life was released in Germany, all the human enemies were changed to be robots--spouting oil instead of blood, gibs replaced by machine bits, etc.?This has nothing to do with the debate at hand. There isn't a kind of consensus on this issue that exists on the use of Nazi symbols.

Stop the ban, I say. Talk about it. I mean here in America we have so many rappers/hip-hoppers singing about killing women, cops, whities....their own families even....I haven't heard of any anti-type lyrics sung by "normal" artists....let the Germans SEE the symbol again.. a constant reminder of what their grandparents allowed themselves to become....and a warning to the younger generation not to be hatists.....unlike here in America...where our young are told through rap/hip-hop to kill, rape,....women...whites....cops...and do drugs....and laugh about it..

But we (me) got to let them....censorship is wrong......You should learn about the issue at hand before commenting. Germans can see the symbols, talk about it, and a whole lot of other stuff.

Everyone should read this bit again:
No, what is banned is the spreading and public use of insignia of organizations that are illegal because they promote goals that run counter to our constitution - explicitly exempt from that are cases in which those insignia are used in the context of education, art, science, history or similar.

We're cautious, not retarded.
History is not being covered up. The past is not being forgotten. Arguments that claim otherwise are bullshit.

History is not being covered up. The past is not being forgotten. Arguments that claim otherwise are bullshit.

It seems that because falsely shouting 'FIRE' in a crowded movie theater is frowned upon, many societies are trying to pretend Prometheus never stole fire from the gods!

It seems that because falsely shouting 'FIRE' in a crowded movie theater is frowned upon, many societies are trying to pretend Prometheus never stole fire from the gods!What are you talking about?

Racism is one of those seductions that lures in the easily corrupted and leads to violence, madness, destruction and death.

Symbolism, particularly Nazi symbolism, being banned has some salient benefits, but it also leads to the risk of the majority thinking it is dead and gone.

That sort of thinking is a mistake. Evil will always find a way to seep through, only vigilance can prevent it from taking over. If banning the symbols of evil helps Germans to prevent its rise? great. If banning the symbolism only allows some OTHER form of that evil to rise, not-so-great.

Well, you know. If any limitation on free speech is put into effect, it is taken by some to mean that there's a 'cover up' or 'running away' and being a 'coward of the worst sort' and 'trying to hide' etc.

Well if that reasoning were valid, then the ban on yelling "fire" like that could be equally interpreted to mean trying to 'cover up' the discovery or existence of fire.

Yeah, OK, it was lame, sorry. I'm a bit tired from all this election angst. Moving on now..

How? What exactly is being done that makes it that much of a problem?


It's a ban on a certain kind of speech, a ban that accomplishes nothing and causes the media and other similar organizations to bring anyone using the banned speech to the news anytime it happens, thus giving far more light to the kind of speech.

In other word, it doesn't do what it attempts to do at all, and therefore is worthless, and as German Nightmare has said more than once, the situation would not change by all that much if the ban was lifted.

If a situation is not going to change all that much when a ban on something is lifted, I don't see why a ban should be kept. In fact, as a matter of principle I'd say the ban should be lifted, and that ought to apply to anything.

Also, to be frank: get over it. Seriously. Get over the Nazis already. Yeah, it happened. Big deal. Deal with it and move on.

Well, you know. If any limitation on free speech is put into effect, it is taken by some to mean that there's a 'cover up' or 'running away' and being a 'coward of the worst sort' and 'trying to hide' etc.

Well if that reasoning were valid, then the ban on yelling "fire" like that could be equally interpreted to mean trying to 'cover up' the discovery or existence of fire.

Yeah, OK, it was lame, sorry. I'm a bit tired from all this election angst. Moving on now..

That's ridiculous. Shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre when there is no fire is a clear case of causing panic for no reason, whereas this symbolism stands for a great deal of racial hatred beliefs, beliefs which can easily be expressed in many other different ways. It just bans one way of expressing them rather than getting rid of the speech entirely.

In order to do what it actually tries to do, it would have to be a ban on free speech altogether, which would--ironically--be a characteristic of the very beliefs it tries to suffocate.

It's a ban on a certain kind of speech, a ban that accomplishes nothing and causes the media and other similar organizations to bring anyone using the banned speech to the news anytime it happens, thus giving far more light to the kind of speech.Reality disagrees.

Yes.

FWIW I am Jewish and most of my ancestors (45 people bearing my surname) were killed by the Nazis.

Reality disagrees.

Oh does it now?

Care to demonstrate how?

Since I was against the tearing down of Communist monuments and symbols here in Czech Republic that happened after 1990 I'd go with removing this ban in Germany.
Being an historycal reenactor I feel that there is a vast difference between studying stuff on books and seeing/feeling actual mementos of history.
For many young people here in Czech Republic the Socialist regime (yes, we were not communist but a Socialist Republic) is something abstract that they cannot grasp.
And memoryes of those that lived those times are often biased.

I think that Germany should "normalize" (what a horrible word) its view of recent history and finally overcome the Nazi complex by starting to see it in an historycal light instead of a guilt complex.
I also think that prosecuting Naziskins for hailing and/or wearing swastikas only makes the problem worse, as these people are usually young and rebellious and see this prosecutions as persecutions.

P.S. In Czech Republic we have a similar law outlawing "criminal ideologies" that I have always been strongly against for this reasons. I could elaborate later if you want.

Oh does it now?

Care to demonstrate how?

Oh, I don't know, maybe because it is in fact not reported by the national media every time someone uses banned speech? As for the "accomplishes nothing" I'd say the onus of demonstration is squarely on your side.

The German people are not demanding it, so...

Oh does it now?

Care to demonstrate how?You're making the point that having it banned has increased the amount of attention Neo-nazis get because of the increased reporting on violations of the law. You've got over 50 years of Federal German news coverage to prove your hypothesis, though, from personal experience, I can't see how you'll be able to.

The German people are not demanding it, so...

This

GM! =)

(which you should totally come back to sometime)
Oh. Right... :p

I would if I could - but I can't since I'm banned... :$
It's the attitude of German legislators to computer games in general. It's a little bit like nudity in the US.

They have this board that rates games and movies in Germany. It does so quite strictly, and violence is generally frowned upon. When things are bad enough (and they considered Half-Life to be that bad) they can place games on an index. These games then can't be advertised or displayed in a way that would likely expose minors to them. That means that if you are over 18, you are in theory able to go to the store, ask for the game which is stored under the counter and get it without much trouble.

Unfortunately that kills the business prospects of selling it for most stores, so actually finding the game will be difficult. In order to get around that, games manufacturers will make German versions which usually have the offending content removed. So in the case of Half-Life, the English version went on sale and was around for a week or so. When that initial batch had been sold, the German version with the robots had been shipped, and stores had no reason to keep ordering the English one.

Of course, my friends and I had one or two English versions and burned the shit out of them so nobody actually played the German one.
Here's another interesting thing I found out just the other day: The "Smokey and the Bandit" Trilogy got a "16" ranking, whereas the much newer, and much more violent "Bourne"-Trilogy was ranked "12".

While I absolutely don't understand that and would have expected it to be the other way around, it also shows that the BPjM (vormals BPjS) is constantly changing their view of what is considered acceptable and what is not.
I didn't ignore them, I just don't agree. I know where you're coming from, I entirely understand your viewpoint expressed in the quotes, I know it's hard to make a consistent argument for the German position in a theoretical/philosophical discussion (well, it's for me) - but I still disagree with you because I see every day that our concept of freedom of opinion applied to the real world works just fine and it drives me nuts when people say that we don't have freedom of opinion just because we've decided that inciting racial hatred is not covered under said freedom.
It's not like we're the only country that doesn't agree with the US on this and it's not like the US doesn't come from their own historical background in forming its concept of freedom of speech and it certainly isn't like Americans don't have blind spots for where their laws curtail freedom of speech (obscenity and nudity comes to mind), so it just irks me that while we're both coming to this with our strong, set notions, we can accept yours but you always make us out to be a self-imposed tyranny straight out of 1984.


I think this whole topic is a difficult one to discuss and one that is probably almost impossible to come to an agreement on. I was reminded of this article (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/12/us/12hate.html) - fittingly called "American Exception".
Hear hear!
Stop the ban, I say. Talk about it. I mean here in America we have so many rappers/hip-hoppers singing about killing women, cops, whities....their own families even....I haven't heard of any anti-type lyrics sung by "normal" artists....let the Germans SEE the symbol again.. a constant reminder of what their grandparents allowed themselves to become....and a warning to the younger generation not to be hatists.....unlike here in America...where our young are told through rap/hip-hop to kill, rape,....women...whites....cops...and do drugs....and laugh about it..

But we (me) got to let them....censorship is wrong......
It's not like the symbolism of the 3rd Reich isn't around everywhere. It's that it is not to be used for political demonstrations and such.

BTW, remember the album Copkiller? I own the original one, including the song. Why again was that changed?
And what about swearing and nudity on TV? How come that you can see people being killed most gruesomely in the afternoon but Lord forbid a single titty is shown...

Splinter in your own eye for you right there.
Yeah, this is Germany's biggest problem. Not the fact that their last election ended in a draw, not the fact that the East isn't integrated, is this.
It absolutely is not our biggest problem. Go educate yourself or stop sporting such nonsense.
I just got back from Germany and I can say, this is certainly not their problem. It could almost be characterized that they don't shut up about it. I can honestly say that they own that part of their history in a way that we can't say about our own scars like slavery or the genocide of the native people. (I'm not saying we don't talk about it, I'm just saying that the way the German people have owned a difficult and unflattering to put it mildly part of their history out strides our own attempts easily.)
Thanks for your post. While it is true that it is sometimes the case that we won't shut up about it, it also is the case that - for some odd reason - foreigners keep always mentioning the war. Don't mention the war!!! :eek::tongue:
Makes no sense. History is preserved, it's running around at a protest with a Nazi flag that's forbidden.
I highly doubt it.
So do I.
How? What exactly is being done that makes it that much of a problem?
I don't get it.

This has nothing to do with the debate at hand. There isn't a kind of consensus on this issue that exists on the use of Nazi symbols.
The German version of "Return to Castle Wolfenstein" would've been a much better example. The blood is there, but the symbols ain't.
You should learn about the issue at hand before commenting. Germans can see the symbols, talk about it, and a whole lot of other stuff.
That's the tough part people don't get.

Everyone should read this bit again:
[WYTYG's post]
History is not being covered up. The past is not being forgotten. Arguments that claim otherwise are bullshit.
I second this.
Racism is one of those seductions that lures in the easily corrupted and leads to violence, madness, destruction and death.
True.
Symbolism, particularly Nazi symbolism, being banned has some salient benefits, but it also leads to the risk of the majority thinking it is dead and gone.
Neither is is dead and gone, nor will it be easily forgotten.
That sort of thinking is a mistake. Evil will always find a way to seep through, only vigilance can prevent it from taking over. If banning the symbols of evil helps Germans to prevent its rise? great. If banning the symbolism only allows some OTHER form of that evil to rise, not-so-great.
It helps.
Well, you know. If any limitation on free speech is put into effect, it is taken by some to mean that there's a 'cover up' or 'running away' and being a 'coward of the worst sort' and 'trying to hide' etc.
Which is not the case in Germany.

It's a ban on a certain kind of speech, a ban that accomplishes nothing and causes the media and other similar organizations to bring anyone using the banned speech to the news anytime it happens, thus giving far more light to the kind of speech.
Prove?

In other word, it doesn't do what it attempts to do at all, and therefore is worthless, and as German Nightmare has said more than once, the situation would not change by all that much if the ban was lifted.
It does what it's supposed to do. Yet, the point I don't understand is why it's anybody's business but ours what we deem okay.
If a situation is not going to change all that much when a ban on something is lifted, I don't see why a ban should be kept. In fact, as a matter of principle I'd say the ban should be lifted, and that ought to apply to anything.
Even if it wouldn't change all that much, why not keep it as a safety measure? After all, German people seem to agree with it, eh?
Also, to be frank: get over it. Seriously. Get over the Nazis already. Yeah, it happened. Big deal. Deal with it and move on.
I'd like to see the international public outcry at us if that were the position the German government would adopt tomorrow.

As long as there are people running around claiming that "we owe them", that's not going to happen.
Reality disagrees.
That it does.
Since I was against the tearing down of Communist monuments and symbols here in Czech Republic that happened after 1990 I'd go with removing this ban in Germany.
Being an historycal reenactor I feel that there is a vast difference between studying stuff on books and seeing/feeling actual mementos of history.
For many young people here in Czech Republic the Socialist regime (yes, we were not communist but a Socialist Republic) is something abstract that they cannot grasp.
And memoryes of those that lived those times are often biased.

I think that Germany should "normalize" (what a horrible word) its view of recent history and finally overcome the Nazi complex by starting to see it in an historycal light instead of a guilt complex.
I also think that prosecuting Naziskins for hailing and/or wearing swastikas only makes the problem worse, as these people are usually young and rebellious and see this prosecutions as persecutions.

P.S. In Czech Republic we have a similar law outlawing "criminal ideologies" that I have always been strongly against for this reasons. I could elaborate later if you want.
I believe you're mixing up guilt with responsibility. I don't feel guilty for what happened. I do, however, feel a responsibility to not let it happen again.
Oh, I don't know, maybe because it is in fact not reported by the national media every time someone uses banned speech?
That's true.
As for the "accomplishes nothing" I'd say the onus of demonstration is squarely on your side.
Agreed.
The German people are not demanding it, so...
...leave us the hell alone? :)
You're making the point that having it banned has increased the amount of attention Neo-nazis get because of the increased reporting on violations of the law. You've got over 50 years of Federal German news coverage to prove your hypothesis, though, from personal experience, I can't see how you'll be able to.
Me neither.
This
Yup!

The German version of "Return to Castle Wolfenstein" would've been a much better example. The blood is there, but the symbols ain't.Or all versions of Company of Heroes or the German versions of Hidden and Dangerous I & II.

It's not like we're the only country that doesn't agree with the US on this and it's not like the US doesn't come from their own historical background in forming its concept of freedom of speech and it certainly isn't like Americans don't have blind spots for where their laws curtail freedom of speech (obscenity and nudity comes to mind), so it just irks me that while we're both coming to this with our strong, set notions, we can accept yours but you always make us out to be a self-imposed tyranny straight out of 1984.

What makes you think that those of us arguing in favor of free speech have 'blind spots" for things like obscenity and nudity laws?

Oh, I don't know, maybe because it is in fact not reported by the national media every time someone uses banned speech? As for the "accomplishes nothing" I'd say the onus of demonstration is squarely on your side.

Absolutely and completely incorrect.

YOU are arguing in favor of removing freedom. You are arguing in favor of government interference in the lives of individuals.

As such, the onus is completely upon you to justify that intrusion.

Oh. Right...

I would if I could - but I can't since I'm banned...

Huh? =(

Absolutely and completely incorrect.

YOU are arguing in favor of removing freedom. You are arguing in favor of government interference in the lives of individuals.

As such, the onus is completely upon you to justify that intrusion.



Huh? =(

Actually, the ban is the status quo in Germany right now, you're the one who is advocating the change, so the onus does lie on your shoulders.

I have an American philosophy on free speech, but the reality is it isn't as black and white as we pretend it is.

Everywhere it is a symbol of racism, treason, and SLAVERY.

I would not ban it, mind you, but I do despise it and think everyone should scorn it.

Not quite. Again, here its more a blanket symbol of the south rather than anything about racism, and of course southern fried chicken. Besides, arguably to us the stars and stripes are as much a symbol as treason as the southern cross is.

I highly doubt it.

Well, how about when those who were alive during the war lose their vote (IE Die), by then its probably a given. At least in entertainment terms. I can understand them being apprehensive on allowing it back into the political system, what with things like Junge Freiheit kicking around.

YOU are arguing in favor of removing freedom. You are arguing in favor of government interference in the lives of individuals.
Damn right. It's how it's been for 60-odd years.
As such, the onus is completely upon you to justify that intrusion.
Nazism was very lame, and people who talk about it being good in any sense or showing their support with symbolism are not worth tolerating?

I simply find the Swastika ugly, so I don't want it back.

What makes you think that those of us arguing in favor of free speech have 'blind spots" for things like obscenity and nudity laws?
The fact that if you don't I'm left wondering what exactly you've been touting as better all this time. After all, as you said: It's not a matter of interpretation. The words mean what they mean. If the government is telling you what opinions you can and cannot express, you do not have freedom of speech.



No, it isn't. Freedom of opinion doesn't mean "freedom unless we don't like your opinion."


Absolutely and completely incorrect.

YOU are arguing in favor of removing freedom. You are arguing in favor of government interference in the lives of individuals.

As such, the onus is completely upon you to justify that intrusion.
Uh, no. The exchange you're referring to was about something entirely different, namely about Kyronea claiming that the ban "accomplishes nothing", and the onus is very much entirely on him to demonstrate the basis and the validity of that claim.

Had it been about what you thought it was about, I'd refer you to Ctoan's post above.

Well, how about when those who were alive during the war lose their vote (IE Die), by then its probably a given. At least in entertainment terms. I can understand them being apprehensive on allowing it back into the political system, what with things like Junge Freiheit kicking around.Never heard of 'em.

Yes. As far left as I tend to be, I think it was an acceptable ban immediately after WWII, but now it is time for Germany to move beyond its shameful past.

Never heard of 'em.
They're a group that killed some Turkish guy in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. The usual.

There is a difference between banning Nazi symbolism and banning anything that has to do with Nazis at all, and it is my understanding that Germany does the latter. If you pretend history doesn't exist, you can't learn from it.

Your understanding is lacking, as have been said before. But I'll show you with two notable examples:

http://medien.filmreporter.de/images/thumbnails/10371_200.jpg

http://livefreeblog.com/don/wp-content/uploads/image/der_untergang1.jpg

Your understanding is lacking, as have been said before. But I'll show you with two notable examples:
Another example is the show "Switch" which does parodies of other shows on German television. One of their runs was on the documentary series "Hitler's Enablers" where they featured his cook that helped him heat up his speeches, a guy on his soccer team that inspired him to attack Poland, and the guy that did the Weimar Republic's Candid Camera that pulled a prank on Hitler by letting him think he was Chancellor. And their parody of the German edition of The Office, where they have Hitler running the office.

I believe they should keep it banned. Even though the swastika is a symbol of good luck for Hindu people, the swastika is used to express nazism for the rest of the world. I guess it all depends on how they express it. If I were a citizen in Germany, I wouldn't want the ban to be abandoned simply because I don't want to go outside and see swastikas spray-painted all over buildings and street signs.

Personally, I don't see any reason for lifting the ban on Nazi symbols. It may be a restriction on free speech, but I'm in favour of reasonable restrictions and I don't believe in a complete free speech. I can see the reasons for keeping the Nazi symbols out of Germany, what with the history it's got.

Had you suggested that the ban on neo-nazi parties itself be lifted, I might agree. The symbols, however, bring nothing to the debate of free speech is a democracy, and the banning of these can be justified as necessary in a democratic society.

Another example is the show "Switch" which does parodies of other shows on German television. One of their runs was on the documentary series "Hitler's Enablers" where they featured his cook that helped him heat up his speeches, a guy on his soccer team that inspired him to attack Poland, and the guy that did the Weimar Republic's Candid Camera that pulled a prank on Hitler by letting him think he was Chancellor. And their parody of the German edition of The Office, where they have Hitler running the office.

Another example is, like, everything.

If the misconceptions posted in this thread were true all Hitler pictures would have armbands and flags and hats and medals blacked out; hundreds of thousands of museums, schools, books, encyclopedias, documentaries, movies would be showing either nothing or photoshopped material; no German under the age of 63 would ever have seen a swastika except in neo-nazi graffiti or on vacation in foreign countries.

I mean, come on!

Personally, I don't see any reason for lifting the ban on Nazi symbols. It may be a restriction on free speech, but I'm in favour of reasonable restrictions and I don't believe in a complete free speech. I can see the reasons for keeping the Nazi symbols out of Germany, what with the history it's got.

Had you suggested that the ban on neo-nazi parties itself be lifted, I might agree. The symbols, however, bring nothing to the debate of free speech is a democracy, and the banning of these can be justified as necessary in a democratic society.

I hardly see the logic in lifting the bans on the parties, yet not the symbols associated with its ideology. Its the people who support the ideology who are the real danger. Not allowing them to use their historical symbols such as the swastika might take away some of their strength, but not enough, and they will just find new symbols.

Another example is the show "Switch" which does parodies of other shows on German television. One of their runs was on the documentary series "Hitler's Enablers" where they featured his cook that helped him heat up his speeches, a guy on his soccer team that inspired him to attack PolIand, and the guy that did the Weimar Republic's Candid Camera that pulled a prank on Hitler by letting him think he was Chancellor. And their parody of the German edition of The Office, where they have Hitler running the office.

The age limit for American History X was 16 in Germany, it seems. So was the 1994 movie Fatherland (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109779/) - which I found surprisingly interesting, btw - while The Producers (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0395251/) the movie had an age limit of 6 The original (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063462/) had an age limit of 12 in West Germany...

I'm sure there's more, but that's what I could think of right of the top of my head!

I hardly see the logic in lifting the bans on the parties, yet not the symbols associated with its ideology. Its the people who support the ideology who are the real danger. Not allowing them to use their historical symbols such as the swastika might take away some of their strength, but not enough, and they will just find new symbols.

Because one can - in theory - be a Nazi and not support the Holocaust, while the symbols themselves are forever inextricably linked to the horrors of WW2.

The age limit for American History X was 16 in Germany, it seems. So was the 1994 movie Fatherland (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109779/) - which I found surprisingly interesting, btw - while The Producers (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0395251/) the movie had an age limit of 6 The original (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063462/) had an age limit of 12 in West Germany...

I'm sure there's more, but that's what I could think of right of the top of my head!I've only read the book to Fatherland. I'd argue in favor of using it in history classes to discuss the question of what if the Nazis had won.

Because one can - in theory - be a Nazi and not support the Holocaust, while the symbols themselves are forever inextricably linked to the horrors of WW2.

Is the real issue suppressing the future rise of Nazism or hiding from the past? If the former, only banning the symbols accomplishes nothing.

Actually, the ban is the status quo in Germany right now, you're the one who is advocating the change, so the onus does lie on your shoulders.

I'm arguing for the default - that the government does not take action.

The onus is always on the government to justify its intrusions, not on those being intruded upon to somehow prove that they should be left alone.

And that goes for any law, not just restrictions on free speech.


Not quite. Again, here its more a blanket symbol of the south rather than anything about racism, and of course southern fried chicken.

Yeah. That's a complete and total myth. The flag was brought back into the south specifically to represent racism. Pretending that it wasn't is silly.

Besides, arguably to us the stars and stripes are as much a symbol as treason as the southern cross is.

The actual flag of the nation is just as much a symbol of treason as the flag of those who tried to overturn it?

Yeah....that makes sense.


Nazism was very lame, and people who talk about it being good in any sense or showing their support with symbolism are not worth tolerating?

Ah, so you think the government should make laws based on what you think is and is not lame.

What if I think [insert religion here] is lame and not worth tolerating?


The fact that if you don't I'm left wondering what exactly you've been touting as better all this time.

I'm touting actual free speech as better.

That doesn't mean that I don't criticize my own government, which does infringe upon it unnecessarily.

Uh, no. The exchange you're referring to was about something entirely different, namely about Kyronea claiming that the ban "accomplishes nothing", and the onus is very much entirely on him to demonstrate the basis and the validity of that claim.

You're asking him to prove a negative.

One cannot demonstrate a lack of effect. Instead, those who claim that there is an effect must demonstrate that it does exist.

You're asking him to prove a negative.

One cannot demonstrate a lack of effect. Instead, those who claim that there is an effect must demonstrate that it does exist.Dem, Kyronea claimed that there is an effect of banning the symbols, namely that those who use the symbols will receive more media attention. We're claiming it has no effect, because, quite frankly, we haven't seen it. The only times anyone really gets any attention whatsoever is when a high profile holocaust denier gets extradited and it involves more than just that issue. For instance no one gives a shit or writes a report on Zündel anymore.

YOU are arguing in favor of removing freedom. You are arguing in favor of government interference in the lives of individuals.

As such, the onus is completely upon you to justify that intrusion.

I can do that!

It's symbols of the horrors of WW2 and the well-known mass violations of human rights committed under Nazi rule all over Europe, and a political ideology that's a real and direct threat to democracy. The symbols in Europe today can be seen as little else than an identification with totalitarian ideas, and does not carry with it multiple meanings. The symbols have been used publicly as a rallying point for subversive elements and agents of chaos and disorder, and has been used directly as threats against immigrants, jews, homosexuals etc. The threat the symbols are connected with goes beyond a mere speculative danger, and thus there can be seen a “pressing social need” for the continued criminalization of them.

I would say that the ban still isn't in violation of ECHR Article 10.

I've only read the book to Fatherland. I'd argue in favor of using it in history classes to discuss the question of what if the Nazis had won.
The film had a certain low-budget feel to it, but the idea and atmosphere was excellent. I should perhaps read the book some day...

Is the real issue suppressing the future rise of Nazism or hiding from the past? If the former, only banning the symbols accomplishes nothing.
How so?

The film had a certain low-budget feel to it, but the idea and atmosphere was excellent. I should perhaps read the book some day...Oh, do. I've read a bit about differences between the two. For one, Martin Luther gets a different name in the movie so you don't confuse the Nazi with the Jew-hater. It's excellently written and well researched.

What makes you think that those of us arguing in favor of free speech have 'blind spots" for things like obscenity and nudity laws?
Maybe it's because your arguments are so fevered in changing another country's way of doing things instead of also mentioning what needs or doesn't need changing in your own?
Absolutely and completely incorrect.

YOU are arguing in favor of removing freedom. You are arguing in favor of government interference in the lives of individuals.

As such, the onus is completely upon you to justify that intrusion.
But the status quo here is that those freedoms you say are being removed are already limited.

You'd now have to give a good argument why we would have to change it.

Huh? =(
One particular mod on GM didn't separate private life and GM business and used them modly powers to kick me out and ban me.

So, as much fun as it was to hang out with you guys over there, I honestly don't care much for returning until that person steps down and lets other more reasonable people take their place.
Actually, the ban is the status quo in Germany right now, you're the one who is advocating the change, so the onus does lie on your shoulders.

I have an American philosophy on free speech, but the reality is it isn't as black and white as we pretend it is.
This.

Damn right. It's how it's been for 60-odd years.

Nazism was very lame, and people who talk about it being good in any sense or showing their support with symbolism are not worth tolerating?
They ain't. That's where we as Germans decided to draw a line.
I simply find the Swastika ugly, so I don't want it back.
The symbol itself is harmless and actually pretty beautiful in its simplicity.

However, what it was turned into and represents today throughout much of the world is a whole different thing.
Yes. As far left as I tend to be, I think it was an acceptable ban immediately after WWII, but now it is time for Germany to move beyond its shameful past.
How about you guys would leave that decision to the people it actually concerns, namely us?
I'd highly appreciate that, you know?

How about you guys would leave that decision to the people it actually concerns, namely us?
I'd highly appreciate that, you know?Uh, pardon the interruption, please.
Is it being discussed at any sort of governmental level? :confused:
Or is this just a, "What if?" scenario?

Uh, pardon the interruption, please.
Is it being discussed at any sort of governmental level? :confused:
Or is this just a, "What if?" scenario?What if. A major what if. None of the parties in power are interested in removing the ban, and you'd need to ammend the constitution, if memory serves.

Anyone who thinks that Germany can't at times, have a laugh at it's history, has obviously never seen die deutsche Kochschau (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=wGPGSyCreJA)

Though you won't understand it nor the jokes if you don't know German.

But take my word for it, it's funny and pokes fun at much of Germany's Nazi history, sayings and culture.

"Saft durch Freude" gets me every time. :D

I believe they should keep it banned. Even though the swastika is a symbol of good luck for Hindu people, the swastika is used to express nazism for the rest of the world. I guess it all depends on how they express it. If I were a citizen in Germany, I wouldn't want the ban to be abandoned simply because I don't want to go outside and see swastikas spray-painted all over buildings and street signs.

I don't want to see peace signs spray-painted all over buildings and street signs. That's vandalism.

But it doesn't mean I think we should ban peace signs.


Dem, Kyronea claimed that there is an effect of banning the symbols, namely that those who use the symbols will receive more media attention. We're claiming it has no effect, because, quite frankly, we haven't seen it.

If it has no effect, it shouldn't be a law.

I can do that!

It's symbols of the horrors of WW2 and the well-known mass violations of human rights committed under Nazi rule all over Europe, and a political ideology that's a real and direct threat to democracy.

Banning the expression of an unpopular political ideology is, itself, a direct contradiction to the principle of democracy.

The symbols in Europe today can be seen as little else than an identification with totalitarian ideas, and does not carry with it multiple meanings.

In any country that actually values free speech, even those with totalitarian ideas can express their views. They may be barred by governmental restrictions from implementing them, but they can express them.

The symbols have been used publicly as a rallying point for subversive elements and agents of chaos and disorder, and has been used directly as threats against immigrants, jews, homosexuals etc. The threat the symbols are connected with goes beyond a mere speculative danger, and thus there can be seen a “pressing social need” for the continued criminalization of them.

Threats can be made without symbols and symbols can be used without threats. The problem here is the threats, not the symbols or even the expression of hateful opinions.

Maybe it's because your arguments are so fevered in changing another country's way of doing things instead of also mentioning what needs or doesn't need changing in your own?

Mentioning those things would be off-topic, as this thread is specifically about the ban on Nazi imagery in Germany.

If you care to look into various past threads on infringement of free speech, nudity laws, religious freedom etc. in the US (or any other country), you'll most likely find me there arguing against them. If you don't, it's because I never saw the thread.

But the status quo here is that those freedoms you say are being removed are already limited.

You'd now have to give a good argument why we would have to change it.

Wrong. The status quo is irrelevant. What matters is the default - which is that the government isn't involved. It doesn't matter if a law has been around for 100 years, the onus is still on those who wish to intrude into the lives of the individual to support it.

If a government intrusion is not justified, it is always good to repeal it.

How about you guys would leave that decision to the people it actually concerns, namely us?
I'd highly appreciate that, you know?

The decision is left up to you.

But that doesn't stop the rest of us from having opinions.

Yeah. That's a complete and total myth. The flag was brought back into the south specifically to represent racism. Pretending that it wasn't is silly.

The American View is not the World View. It maybe has those connotations in the USA, but it doesn't have them to a large degree where I live.

The actual flag of the nation is just as much a symbol of treason as the flag of those who tried to overturn it?

Yeah....that makes sense.

Yup. Remember 1775? What goes around comes around.

The American View is not the World View. It maybe has those connotations in the USA, but it doesn't have them to a large degree where I live.

I don't know where you live that people fly the Confederate Flag but in no way associate it with the Confederate States of America.

The Confederate Flag is a symbol from the U.S. and symbolizes slavery, racial oppression, and treason. Saying "it doesn't mean that here" is bullshit. How, pray tell, did it come to have some other meaning in the "World View"?

What if. A major what if. None of the parties in power are interested in removing the ban, and you'd need to ammend the constitution, if memory serves.Joy.

Your understanding is lacking, as have been said before. But I'll show you with two notable examples:

[Mein Führer]
[Der Untergang]

The second movie you mentioned, "Der Untergang" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0363163/) is excellent. I went and watched it at the movies and was quite surprised that the audience consisted of all ages. Good stuff.
One of the greatest movies ever produced is "Das Boot" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081834/), especially in its 293min (6 episodes) TV version. I tend to watch it whenever it's on.
"Stalingrad" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108211/) is another of those that are definitely worth watching.

The first one you mentioned, however, "Mein Führer" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0780568/), was terribly bad.
The maker couldn't decide whether he wanted to do a comedy or a serious piece. The result was a blend that left me puzzled. It was neither serious, nor funny, nor had it any entertainment value. That's a good example of how not to make fun of Hitler.
Another example is the show "Switch" which does parodies of other shows on German television. One of their runs was on the documentary series "Hitler's Enablers" where they featured his cook that helped him heat up his speeches, a guy on his soccer team that inspired him to attack Poland, and the guy that did the Weimar Republic's Candid Camera that pulled a prank on Hitler by letting him think he was Chancellor. And their parody of the German edition of The Office, where they have Hitler running the office.
Which, I have to say, is brilliantly scripted and played and thus seriously funny. One of the best takes on Hitler I've seen since Moers "Adolf - Äch bin wieder da!"
Personally, I don't see any reason for lifting the ban on Nazi symbols. It may be a restriction on free speech, but I'm in favour of reasonable restrictions and I don't believe in a complete free speech. I can see the reasons for keeping the Nazi symbols out of Germany, what with the history it's got.

Had you suggested that the ban on neo-nazi parties itself be lifted, I might agree. The symbols, however, bring nothing to the debate of free speech is a democracy, and the banning of these can be justified as necessary in a democratic society.
I can only agree.
Another example is, like, everything.

If the misconceptions posted in this thread were true all Hitler pictures would have armbands and flags and hats and medals blacked out; hundreds of thousands of museums, schools, books, encyclopedias, documentaries, movies would be showing either nothing or photoshopped material; no German under the age of 63 would ever have seen a swastika except in neo-nazi graffiti or on vacation in foreign countries.

I mean, come on!
And don't you forget the 1957 law about medals and such received during WK2 which had to be altered if they were to be displayed or worn.

The age limit for American History X was 16 in Germany, it seems. So was the 1994 movie Fatherland (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109779/) - which I found surprisingly interesting, btw - while The Producers (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0395251/) the movie had an age limit of 6 The original (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063462/) had an age limit of 12 in West Germany...

I'm sure there's more, but that's what I could think of right of the top of my head!
The film had a certain low-budget feel to it, but the idea and atmosphere was excellent. I should perhaps read the book some day...
Fatherland, what an excellent movie. (Wasn't it produced for HBO and therefore limited in funds?) I have yet to read the book but it's there on the shelf.
Because one can - in theory - be a Nazi and not support the Holocaust, while the symbols themselves are forever inextricably linked to the horrors of WW2.
This!
I've only read the book to Fatherland. I'd argue in favor of using it in history classes to discuss the question of what if the Nazis had won.
I'd agree.

(Which reminds me of an on-going joke between me and my friends that whenever there's a war-movie on TV we go "Let's watch it! Maybe this time we'll win..." Quite a surprise when we watched Fatherland and "we" did win right at the beginning of the movie.)
Is the real issue suppressing the future rise of Nazism or hiding from the past? If the former, only banning the symbols accomplishes nothing.
It's not about hiding from the past, it's about drawing a line of what is acceptable in this society and what isn't, and nazi symbols fall into the latter category.
I'm arguing for the default - that the government does not take action.
That is a nice dream. Very utopian, but also very unrealistic.

The onus is always on the government to justify its intrusions, not on those being intruded upon to somehow prove that they should be left alone.

And that goes for any law, not just restrictions on free speech.
Yet you'd have to understand that the founding fathers of the Federal Republic decided that this intrusion was indeed justified and later generations tend to agree with them wholeheartedly.

What if I think is lame and not worth tolerating?
Zen ve vill eksterminate zem! :eek:

I'm touting actual free speech as better.
And I'm not convinced it is. Living in a society always demands compromise. This is what we decided to compromise on.

That doesn't mean that I don't criticize my own government, which does infringe upon it unnecessarily.
Then why do you feel called to change other peoples' societies?

What works for you guys doesn't necessarily work here as well.
Dem, Kyronea claimed that there is an effect of banning the symbols, namely that those who use the symbols will receive more media attention. We're claiming it has no effect, because, quite frankly, we haven't seen it. The only times anyone really gets any attention whatsoever is when a high profile holocaust denier gets extradited and it involves more than just that issue. For instance no one gives a shit or writes a report on Zündel anymore.
Haven't seen it, either.
I can do that!

It's symbols of the horrors of WW2 and the well-known mass violations of human rights committed under Nazi rule all over Europe, and a political ideology that's a real and direct threat to democracy. The symbols in Europe today can be seen as little else than an identification with totalitarian ideas, and does not carry with it multiple meanings. The symbols have been used publicly as a rallying point for subversive elements and agents of chaos and disorder, and has been used directly as threats against immigrants, jews, homosexuals etc. The threat the symbols are connected with goes beyond a mere speculative danger, and thus there can be seen a “pressing social need” for the continued criminalization of them.

I would say that the ban [I]still isn't in violation of ECHR Article 10.
A tip of the hat to you, sir!

If it has no effect, it shouldn't be a law.
Dem, please read the arguments you're butting into. Kyronea claims one reason why it's wrong is because it has the effect of granting the censored media attention. We're arguing that it doesn't have this effect, not that it has no effect whatsoever.

I don't know where you live that people fly the Confederate Flag but in no way associate it with the Confederate States of America.

People associate it with the CSA, of course. I never said otherwise. And people associate the CSA with the South of America. And thus with the food that comes from the south, in the culinary world.

The Confederate Flag is a symbol from the U.S. and symbolizes slavery, racial oppression, and treason. Saying "it doesn't mean that here" is bullshit. How, pray tell, did it come to have some other meaning in the "World View"?

Right. For a start there's no way that we associate it with treason, because they didn't secede from us. The USA, however, did, which was my reasoning for the quip a while back. One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter, after all.

The other two? Like I said, I know of a local greasy spoon that I remember flying the southern cross at one point near by. They were and still aren't racists, and though I can hardly say I know of their opinion I can presume they don't support slavery.

When I went there and noticed the flag, I thought "The American South" and that train of thought led me to traditionally southern dishes. At no point did I think of racism, and it is unlikely what with the PC community we live in today they would have knowing put that flag up (after probably getting it off a lorry driver.). Maybe World View was the incorrect term. Perhaps I should have said East Lancastrian view instead.

The American View is not the World View. It maybe has those connotations in the USA, but it doesn't have them to a large degree where I live.

I don't think the confederate flag is used much outside the US, or outside the Southern US, for that matter.

Yup. Remember 1775? What goes around comes around.

And someone in Britain could very well call it a traitor's flag.

But I got the impression you live in the southern US.


That is a nice dream. Very utopian, but also very unrealistic.

I didn't say that the government should never take any action. Society needs some restrictions.

What I did say is that the default on any particular action is that it is legal. And the onus is always upon those who wish for it to be illegal to support that intrustion.

Yet you'd have to understand that the founding fathers of the Federal Republic decided that this intrusion was indeed justified and later generations tend to agree with them wholeheartedly.

The fact that some people decided it doesn't make it so. And even if 99% of people agree with it, that doesn't mean it is necessarily justified.

A bunch of people in the US yesterday decided that they were justified in denying equal protection under the law to homosexuals. Does that make it so?

And I'm not convinced it is. Living in a society always demands compromise. This is what we decided to compromise on.

Forced compromise should be very, very limited.

Then why do you feel called to change other peoples' societies?

For the same reason I feel called to change the one in which I live. Human rights are human rights - I believe they apply to all people, not just the ones who happen to live under the same government as me.

I realize that I only have any direct affect on the country in which I live, and I accept that. But it isn't going to stop me from voicing my opinion when other governments infringe upon their citizens' rights.

What works for you guys doesn't necessarily work here as well.

When it comes to discussions of rights, I think such things are universal.

Every human being has the right to live his own life with only minimal intrusion from the government. I don't care what country or what continent he lives on. Of course, the infringements are much more egregious in some places than others, but that doesn't somehow make the lesser infringements ok.

Uh, pardon the interruption, please.
Is it being discussed at any sort of governmental level? :confused:
Or is this just a, "What if?" scenario?
What Laerod said:
What if. A major what if. None of the parties in power are interested in removing the ban, and you'd need to ammend the constitution, if memory serves.

Anyone who thinks that Germany can't at times, have a laugh at it's history, has obviously never seen die deutsche Kochschau (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=wGPGSyCreJA)

Though you won't understand it nor the jokes if you don't know German.

But take my word for it, it's funny and pokes fun at much of Germany's Nazi history, sayings and culture.

"Saft durch Freude" gets me every time. :D
Ooh boy, are you of the ignorant misinformed kind.

You do know that those guys are not Germans but Austrians, right?

If not, now you know.
They're poking fun at the 3rd Reich, which is especially good since - if memory serves correctly - Austria has (had) a tendency to regard itself as a victim, not as a culprit.

Dem, please read the arguments you're butting into. Kyronea claims one reason why it's wrong is because it has the effect of granting the censored media attention. We're arguing that it doesn't have this effect, not that it has no effect whatsoever.

Pot, meet kettle....

This is what I initially responded to:


Oh does it now?

Care to demonstrate how?
Oh, I don't know, maybe because it is in fact not reported by the national media every time someone uses banned speech? As for the "accomplishes nothing" I'd say the onus of demonstration is squarely on your side.

The discussion was about Kyronea's claim that the ban "accomplishes nothing."

WYTYG claimed that the onus was on Kyro to prove this negative.

But I got the impression you live in the southern US.

I suspected so. Though THE GRIM NORTH can suggest otherwise :p.

I don't think the confederate flag is used much outside the US, or outside the Southern US, for that matter.
Off the top of my head I could name at least a dozen people how have or have had the Southern Cross in their bedroom. Don't ask me why, I couldn't give you an answer.

Maybe it has to do with knowing what it feels like to lose in a big war, but that's pure speculation!

But I got the impression you live in the southern US.
I've lived there, and in some parts of the woods, you can still see it be flown.

I didn't say that the government should never take any action. Society needs some restrictions.
What I did say is that the default on any particular action is that it is legal. And the onus is always upon those who wish for it to be illegal to support that intrustion.
And I believe those who made it illegal have supported the intrusion well enough for the decision to still have merit.
The fact that some people decided it doesn't make it so. And even if 99% of people agree with it, that doesn't mean it is necessarily justified.
Well, the highest independent court here doesn't have a problem with the ban, so I'd say it's okay.
A bunch of people in the US yesterday decided that they were justified in denying equal protection under the law to homosexuals. Does that make it so?
No, but I don't understand their argument.
Forced compromise should be very, very limited.
And it is.

Then, what about laws the regulate when you're allowed to play your music at high volume?
I mean, you'd have to be able to play your stuff whenever you feel like it, even if it is in the middle of the night.

It seems, however, that an infringement on that is acceptable in society. Where's the difference?

For the same reason I feel called to change the one in which I live. Human rights are human rights - I believe they apply to all people, not just the ones who happen to live under the same government as me.

I realize that I only have any direct affect on the country in which I live, and I accept that. But it isn't going to stop me from voicing my opinion when other governments infringe upon their citizens' rights.
Good enough. The question that remains is whether those citizens do indeed see the applying laws as an infringement on their rights.
I know I don't.

When it comes to discussions of rights, I think such things are universal.
Only that their application is not as universal, even in those countries that do completely grant them...

What Laerod said:



Ooh boy, are you of the ignorant misinformed kind.

You do know that those guys are not Germans but Austrians, right?

If not, now you know.
They're poking fun at the 3rd Reich, which is especially good since - if memory serves correctly - Austria has (had) a tendency to regard itself as a victim, not as a culprit.

Ah, good! I thought their accents were a bit funny!:D

Banning the expression of an unpopular political ideology is, itself, a direct contradiction to the principle of democracy.
Well, yes and no. Yes, in theory. No, not in the real world. Not when you consider the history behind the symbols - signifying replacing democracy with an authoritarian regime with millions of lives on its conscience.

And when you consider that the ideas aren't in question here, just the symbols, I don't see how it's a contradiction to the principle of democracy to disallow homages in the honour of the successful twisting and destruction of democracy.


In any country that actually values free speech, even those with totalitarian ideas can express their views.
In any country that values free speech, there's reasonable limits to that freedom.

They may be barred by governmental restrictions from implementing them, but they can express them.
As they can in the case of Germany. Not being able to wear those symbols with roots back to WW2 does not mean that they're prohibited from expressing their views.

And the German limitations on the actual expressing of Nazi views on the political stage would not be changed by allowing the symbols to be used yet again.


Threats can be made without symbols and symbols can be used without threats. The problem here is the threats, not the symbols or even the expression of hateful opinions.
But in this case, the symbols works as threat in and by themselves. If someone paints a swastika on an immigrant shop here, that's seen as a direct threat. Such is the power of the connotations of that symbol.

Pot, meet kettle....

This is what I initially responded to:



The discussion was about Kyronea's claim that the ban "accomplishes nothing."

WYTYG claimed that the onus was on Kyro to prove this negative.
It actually isn't. Here's the parts you missed:
It's a ban on a certain kind of speech, a ban that accomplishes nothing and causes the media and other similar organizations to bring anyone using the banned speech to the news anytime it happens, thus giving far more light to the kind of speech.
Reality disagrees.
Oh does it now?

Care to demonstrate how?
I disagreed with the bit about the banned speech getting people into the news anytime it happens, as someone who's seen it happen without it getting into the news. WYTYG and GN agree with me on this and this is what that particular bit of "You prove it! No you" is about.

I may be a bit snappy because you came in here and spouted the "Saving Private Ryan is banned in Germany" nonsense and those kinds of uninformed comments are irritating as hell.

I don't think the confederate flag is used much outside the US, or outside the Southern US, for that matter.

More than you'd like to know, I'm afraid... You'll find it's a favoured accessory of quite a few racists, neo nazis and white supremacists. And biker gangs, of course.

Off the top of my head I could name at least a dozen people how have or have had the Southern Cross in their bedroom. Don't ask me why, I couldn't give you an answer.

Ugh.

Maybe it has to do with knowing what it feels like to lose in a big war, but that's pure speculation!

Beats me!

I've lived there, and in some parts of the woods, you can still see it be flown.

Oh, believe me, I know. I don't even have to drive a full mile from my house to see one.

And I believe those who made it illegal have supported the intrusion well enough for the decision to still have merit.

And I haven't heard anything that I believe supports that intrusion.

Well, the highest independent court here doesn't have a problem with the ban, so I'd say it's okay.

And that's back to, "Some people say its ok, so it is."

High courts have upheld all sorts of atrocities.

No, but I don't understand their argument.

Their argument is easy to understand. In fact, it's pretty much the exact argument you're making. In their eyes, things like same-sex marriage are horrible enough and supposedly enough of a threat to society that they feel justified in denying rights to those they detest.

And it is.

Not when there are laws against expressing one's opinion, it isn't.

Then, what about laws the regulate when you're allowed to play your music at high volume?
I mean, you'd have to be able to play your stuff whenever you feel like it, even if it is in the middle of the night.

It seems, however, that an infringement on that is acceptable in society. Where's the difference?

The noise from your music leaks over onto someone else's property and thus directly affects them, making it something that can be regulated. Regulation, though, is not the same as a ban. Loud music is not banned - the time and place at which it can be used is regulated

We do this with rallies as well. Those planning large events have to register those events so that law enforcement officials can be ready for it, roads can be cleared, etc. This is because a sudden large mob forming wherever they happen to be can cause all sorts of problems.

The infringement would come in if we regulated what kind of rallies could be held, rather than time and place. It would come in if we regulated what music could be listened to, instead of merely regulating the volume at certain times.

Good enough. The question that remains is whether those citizens do indeed see the applying laws as an infringement on their rights.
I know I don't.

Those who don't want to do something often don't see infringement on their rights when it is banned. It's only infringement if it's currently happening to you. I don't see it that way.

I don't want to marry a girl, so one might say my rights haven't technically haven't been infringed upon by laws against same-sex marriage. After all, I was able to marry the partner of my choice. It doesn't mean that such laws do not infringe upon rights.

And, rights can be infringed upon even if those the laws are being enforced upon don't see it as such. There were plenty of women who argued against women's suffrage. There were slaves who saw themselves as property. There are women today who support abortion bans and homosexuals who do not support the extension of marriage rights to same-sex couples.

Only that their application is not as universal, even in those countries that do completely grant them...

No government will never be perfect.

Doesn't mean we shouldn't keep trying to get it closer.

A tip of the hat to you, sir!
Say... That's a nice hat you've got there...

*Steals hat*

*Flees*

It actually isn't. Here's the parts you missed:

I didn't miss anything. I responded to a particular part of the conversation that was specifically in reference to Kyro's comment that the ban accomplishes nothing.


Well, yes and no. Yes, in theory. No, not in the real world. Not when you consider the history behind the symbols - signifying replacing democracy with an authoritarian regime with millions of lives on its conscience.

Free speech isn't "free unless we detest your viewpoints with everything in us."

I detest what Nazis have to say. It doesn't mean they don't have the right to say it, just as I have the right to express my opinion that they are horrible people.

And when you consider that the ideas aren't in question here, just the symbols, I don't see how it's a contradiction to the principle of democracy to disallow homages in the honour of the successful twisting and destruction of democracy.

If the ideas aren't in question here, why would it matter what the symbols represent?


In any country that values free speech, there's reasonable limits to that freedom.

And those limits are kept to applications of speech that directly cause harm.

Otherwise, you don't have free speech. You have "government approved speech."

As they can in the case of Germany. Not being able to wear those symbols with roots back to WW2 does not mean that they're prohibited from expressing their views.

If someone said I couldn't wear an Obama sticker or put one on my car, that would be keeping me from expressing my views.

Sure, I might find a way around it, but that fact wouldn't justify the restriction.

And the German limitations on the actual expressing of Nazi views on the political stage would not be changed by allowing the symbols to be used yet again.

Perhaps not. But both are unreasonable infringements upon free speech.

In fact, actual restrictions against expressing one's view in the political stage are much more egregious than banning a set of particular symbols.

But in this case, the symbols works as threat in and by themselves. If someone paints a swastika on an immigrant shop here, that's seen as a direct threat. Such is the power of the connotations of that symbol.

I could see that. The burning of crosses in the lawns of black families is treated the same way here.

But if they have it on their own house, they aren't threatening anyone. And if the KKK wants to have a rally on property belonging to a member and burn crosses, that's their business (so long as they follow fire safety codes).

Germany has a long-standing ban on Nazi symbolism, a rather understandable ban given that Germany under the Nazis was possibly the worst regime in world history, potentially second only to the Soviet Union under Iosef Stalin. (Depending upon who you ask.)

But this ban is a form of censorship on free speech. The question I ask: should Germany abandon this ban?

First of all, I would argue that Hitler's Germany was only the fifth worst regime in history, after the Japanese Empire of the 1930s and 1940s, Pol Pot's Kampuchea, Mao's China, Stalin's Soviet Union

Secondly, I would say that Germany should abandon the ban. To be honest, you don't see the Hammer & Sickle being banned in Russia, nor do you see the Japanese Naval Ensign banned in Japan (indeed, it is still used by the Japanese Navy).

How about you guys would leave that decision to the people it actually concerns, namely us?
I'd highly appreciate that, you know?

The decision is ultimately yours, but I am entitled to having an opinion on the matter if I so please. Not being a resident of a nation does not disqualify me from having thoughts on their policies. Do you never form opinions on something being done in another country? And I should point out that while I live and grew up in the United States, I was born in Germany to German parents. I will likely never move there, but I have understandable reasons for being interested in this matter.

More than you'd like to know, I'm afraid... You'll find it's a favoured accessory of quite a few racists, neo nazis and white supremacists. And biker gangs, of course.
Ugh.
Beats me!
After I've spend some time of thinking this over, here's another alternative: Rebels. We liked them for rebelling. Oh, those rebellious days of youth long gone. :(

And I haven't heard anything that I believe supports that intrusion.
Then I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

And that's back to, "Some people say its ok, so it is."
High courts have upheld all sorts of atrocities.
While that is true, having read our Basic Law a couple of times, I have to say I'm pretty satisfied with it and honestly wouldn't know how to improve on it.

The people and the courts are bound by it.

Their argument is easy to understand. In fact, it's pretty much the exact argument you're making. In their eyes, things like same-sex marriage are horrible enough and supposedly enough of a threat to society that they feel justified in denying rights to those they detest.
However, I have yet to see gay marriage lead to a world war, a holocaust, the abolition of democracy, the installment of a fascist regime, people being jailed, enslaved, and killed.

So I'd say it's apples and oranges.

The noise from your music leaks over onto someone else's property and thus directly affects them, making it something that can be regulated. Regulation, though, is not the same as a ban. Loud music is not banned - the time and place at which it can be used is regulated
So, isn't a ban a complete regulation?
And am I not directly affected when people were to display the swastika?
At which point do I have to tolerate being affected, at which point would a regulation or a ban be acceptable?

Besides, I have yet to be at a place at which I could use my stereo at its full potential. It's either too early, too late, or within the reach of others who'd be directly affected. So, from a purely practical point of view, there is no difference between regulation and a ban.

We do this with rallies as well. Those planning large events have to register those events so that law enforcement officials can be ready for it, roads can be cleared, etc. This is because a sudden large mob forming wherever they happen to be can cause all sorts of problems.

The infringement would come in if we regulated what kind of rallies could be held, rather than time and place. It would come in if we regulated what music could be listened to, instead of merely regulating the volume at certain times.

Same here.
However, should the amount of problems that would be caused by allowing a rally surmount its "usefulness" (for lack of a better word), then the rally can be denied.

Something that happens fairly frequently with neo-nazi rallies because, while they have a right to have their rally, the anti-rally rally is usually a whole lot bigger, the police needs more personnel, both rallies must not have the same place/route, and need to be kept apart.

So courts often decide that not allowing the neo-nazis to have their rally weighs more in the interest of the general public who has to pay for the police and who would have to cope with public unrest than infringing on the right of a few idiots - for pure, practical reasons, that is.

Those who don't want to do something often don't see infringement on their rights when it is banned. It's only infringement if it's currently happening to you. I don't see it that way.
I'll admit, there's only so much I'm willing to do to further the rights of nazis. It's not much. Actually, it's nothing.

I don't want to marry a girl, so one might say my rights haven't technically haven't been infringed upon by laws against same-sex marriage. After all, I was able to marry the partner of my choice. It doesn't mean that such laws do not infringe upon rights.
Ah, but same-sex marriages to threaten me. Those who are willing to disband our democracy, our constitution, our way of life, do.

And, rights can be infringed upon even if those the laws are being enforced upon don't see it as such. There were plenty of women who argued against women's suffrage. There were slaves who saw themselves as property. There are women today who support abortion bans and homosexuals who do not support the extension of marriage rights to same-sex couples.
But you'll have to admit that those examples you've mentioned mean that the people are working against something that would benefit them or others like them.

I don't see how allowing nazis to have their say would do so, neither for me, nor for anyone else.

No government will never be perfect.
How pessimistic of you to resort to a double negative! :p
Doesn't mean we shouldn't keep trying to get it closer.
That I can agree with.
Say... That's a nice hat you've got there...

*Steals hat*

*Flees*
Mein Hut, der hat drei Ecken,
Drei Ecken hat mein Hut.
Und hätt' er nicht drei Ecken,
So wär's auch nicht mein Hut.
Perhaps not. But both are unreasonable infringements upon free speech.
Whether or not it is an unreasonable infringement depends on your point of view.

(so long as they follow fire safety codes).
Why would they have to follow fire safety codes? Burning a cross in their backyard is part of their free speech, is it not?
Or is that part of "regulation" vs. "ban"?

But, if they aren't allowed to burn a cross in their backyard by regulation at any time - how is that different from being banned?

After I've spend some time of thinking this over, here's another alternative: Rebels. We liked them for rebelling. Oh, those rebellious days of youth long gone. :(

Rebellion can be good.

Rebellion because you want to enslave other people and you're afraid that someone might tell you you can't? Not so much.

Then I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

Probably. =)

However, I have yet to see gay marriage lead to a world war, a holocaust, the abolition of democracy, the installment of a fascist regime, people being jailed, enslaved, and killed.

I have yet to see someone expressing an opinion lead to this either.

It's the point at which someone tries to enforce their opinion upon others that these things happen.

So, isn't a ban a complete regulation?

A ban means that you simply cannot do something.

Regulation means that the exact manner in which you do it may be restricted for the safety of others.

And am I not directly affected when people were to display the swastika?

No, not really. You are no more directly affected by someone displaying a swastika than you are by someone displaying any other symbol.

Besides, I have yet to be at a place at which I could use my stereo at its full potential.

Maybe you live in an area that is far too restrictive then.

Although I would ask if those restrictions are all governmental, or if some of them are put in place by a landlord or some such.

Same here.
However, should the amount of problems that would be caused by allowing a rally surmount its "usefulness" (for lack of a better word), then the rally can be denied.

Something that happens fairly frequently with neo-nazi rallies because, while they have a right to have their rally, the anti-rally rally is usually a whole lot bigger, the police needs more personnel, both rallies must not have the same place/route, and need to be kept apart.

So courts often decide that not allowing the neo-nazis to have their rally weighs more in the interest of the general public who has to pay for the police and who would have to cope with public unrest than infringing on the right of a few idiots - for pure, practical reasons, that is.

I disagree. The expression of any opinion can cause a problem. The fact that large enough numbers of people find certain opinions distasteful enough to counter-demonstrate doesn't justify keeping that opinion from being expressed. KKK rallies, at least up until recently, often provoked large counter-rallies. Both groups equally have the right to express their opinions.

If rallies are to be allowed in an area, they need to be allowed for anyone who wishes to hold them.

Infringing on rights for "practical reasons" doesn't sit well with me. You can always find "practical reasons" for something.

I'll admit, there's only so much I'm willing to do to further the rights of nazis. It's not much. Actually, it's nothing.

*shrug*

Like I said, I think rights are universal. It doesn't matter how distasteful I find someone to be, they still have all the same rights as me.

Ah, but same-sex marriages to threaten me. Those who are willing to disband our democracy, our constitution, our way of life, do.

Plenty of people say that same-sex marriages do threaten them (and their children, ZOMG, think of the children!).

I don't think that allowing a Nazi to express his opinion threatens you. He doesn't threaten you until he tries to act upon that opinion.

There are plenty of people in the world who would say that I shouldn't be allowed to work, that I should cover more of my body than I do, and that my husband should beat me if I act up. Some of them are in my own country. Their words don't threaten me in the least.

But you'll have to admit that those examples you've mentioned mean that the people are working against something that would benefit them or others like them.

Indeed, that was the whole point of those particular examples.

How pessimistic of you to resort to a double negative! :p

Oops. That's what I get for deciding to change the wording of that sentence.

That I can agree with.

=)

Whether or not it is an unreasonable infringement depends on your point of view.

Indeed. And I have a very strict view of what constitutes reasonable government infringement.

Why would they have to follow fire safety codes?

Because if they don't, they're likely to burn down someone else's house. (In other words, they are directly endangering the property/lives of other people).

Burning a cross in their backyard is part of their free speech, is it not?

It is. Hence the reason that I said they can do it, so long as they do it in a manner that doesn't endanger others.

But, if they aren't allowed to burn a cross in their backyard by regulation at any time - how is that different from being banned?

That wouldn't be different from being banned, and I would oppose such a law.

I'm glad this thread has encouraged such fantastic political discussion about Germany. There is far too little of that for modern Germany.

I think I will acknowledge my inability to prove my claims and back out of the debate.

I find it kind of ironic that too much free speech was what got Hitler into power in the first place.

But I got the impression you live in the southern US.

You should check out the Phora. Those ppl will confuse the hell out of ya. Yankees waving Confederate Flags .. Russians waving German .. Jews waving Nazi. meh.