11 ms·

Nazi symbols include e.g. swastikas which had long prior been traditional symbols in hinduism and other religions. Besides, how do you distinguish simply radica

Nazi symbols include e.g. swastikas which had long prior been traditional symbols in hinduism and other religions. Besides, how do you distinguish simply radical right-wing crackheads from neonazis using only their speeches/statements?

gambiting 11y ago
I live right next to the former Auschwitz concentration camp - If some idiot pulls out a swastika during a demonstration and walks with the nazi salute I really don't believe he's simply displaying his affection for hinduism, and I really expect the police to arrest him.
- xentronium 11y ago
  Well, to me it looks like a freedom of speech issue. As someone living in a state where freedom of speech is really oppressed, I'd rather have idiots throw nazi salutes than people getting real prison terms for something they said.
  - ckozlowski 11y ago
    The case of Germany is a bit special, and deserves some explanation. After the war, the Allies had a problem. The Nazi party was never a majority, but millions were members, some cohered to various degrees, some joining freely for various reasons, some of which were innocuous. But the party of National Socialism had advocated, then lead, the destruction of millions and called for a policy of war, and its continued existance was unacceptable. To imprison and punish every living member would have been completely unfeasible for numerous reasons, both moral and logistical. So a different solution had to be worked out. Those who had enough reason or evidence against them to bring charges were tried, but for everyone else (and remember, we're talking millions here), including members of the Wehrmacht, a sort of parole for the entire country was instituted. All of these men and women would live free, with no charges brought, under the condition that the Nazi party was never spoken of or promoted again. Ever. And this was enshrined in law. Those laws still exist. Now, whether or not you think they're still relevant, I cannot say. I'm an American expat in Germany, so I have my values on one side, and the stories surrounding me on the other. Here, in this country, it's a complicated and uncomfortable issue.
  - icanhackit 11y ago
    To condense your statement, it's impossible to have freedom of speech without accepting the good with the bad. While I don't think Neo Nazis have anything positive to contribute to the social dialogue - if you exclude them, criminalize their expression, they're driven to places where they operate in relative darkness, allowing their ideology to remain unchallenged and ferment. You can't change a person's mind without engaging in dialogue with them, and you can't have a dialogue without allowing them to have a voice. Freedom of speech is about keeping the line open to everyone so that we can eventually come to an enlightened relative consensus.
    - Scarblac 11y ago
      Waving nazi flags right outside Auschwitz isn't speech though.
      - darkmarmot 11y ago
        Hatred and animosity is definitely a form of speech. You're just drawing a line as to what you're allowed to hate. Carrying pictures of aborted fetuses at clinics and screaming at women attempting to get healthcare is arguable in the same vein.
        Scarblac 11y ago
        I think that's a cultural difference between us, I would consider none of those things speech. Well, the screaming probably is, but then that's also pure aggression and intimidation and so could still have legal consequences. The kind of speech that should be protected is the kind that consists of words, viewpoints, arguments.
        zo1 11y ago
        "The kind of speech that should be protected is the kind that consists of words, viewpoints, arguments." I understand where you're coming from, but you have to understand that it's still an arbitrary line. Remember that old "First they came for[...]", well, substitute in there "First they came for those shouting non-arguments."
  - ta0967 11y ago
    I'd rather have idiots throw nazi salutes than people getting real prison terms for something they said. that's what germany tried between the world wars.
  - hospes 11y ago
    Freedom of speech comes with responsibility, freedom of speech does not mean you can falsely shout fire in a theater and cause a panic (paraphrasing of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion from Supreme Court ruling "Schenck v. United States" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...). When there is person or a group of people calling for genocide or enslaving of a certain group of other people (and that is what Nazis do), they clearly need to be isolated from society, because their ideas are criminal and directed against humanity. Try to apply it to yourself. Random guys walking around with shaved heads and swastikas yelling that they need to kill you, your family and everyone who belongs to your ethnic group, religion or simply "looks wrong". Are you OK with that, do you still think that is freedom of speech?
- necessity 11y ago
  What about socialist flags in Russia or somewhere else? They had concentration camps too.
  - robin_reala 11y ago
    Or the stars and stripes in the US? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_Americans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_America... Mind you, there’s a difference between a ‘concentration camp’ and a site of mass murder.
    - necessity 11y ago
      My point is neither should be banned, not the other way around.

gambiting 11y ago

I live right next to the former Auschwitz concentration camp - If some idiot pulls out a swastika during a demonstration and walks with the nazi salute I really don't believe he's simply displaying his affection for hinduism, and I really expect the police to arrest him.

xentronium 11y ago
Well, to me it looks like a freedom of speech issue. As someone living in a state where freedom of speech is really oppressed, I'd rather have idiots throw nazi salutes than people getting real prison terms for something they said.
- ckozlowski 11y ago
  The case of Germany is a bit special, and deserves some explanation. After the war, the Allies had a problem. The Nazi party was never a majority, but millions were members, some cohered to various degrees, some joining freely for various reasons, some of which were innocuous. But the party of National Socialism had advocated, then lead, the destruction of millions and called for a policy of war, and its continued existance was unacceptable. To imprison and punish every living member would have been completely unfeasible for numerous reasons, both moral and logistical. So a different solution had to be worked out. Those who had enough reason or evidence against them to bring charges were tried, but for everyone else (and remember, we're talking millions here), including members of the Wehrmacht, a sort of parole for the entire country was instituted. All of these men and women would live free, with no charges brought, under the condition that the Nazi party was never spoken of or promoted again. Ever. And this was enshrined in law. Those laws still exist. Now, whether or not you think they're still relevant, I cannot say. I'm an American expat in Germany, so I have my values on one side, and the stories surrounding me on the other. Here, in this country, it's a complicated and uncomfortable issue.
- icanhackit 11y ago
  To condense your statement, it's impossible to have freedom of speech without accepting the good with the bad. While I don't think Neo Nazis have anything positive to contribute to the social dialogue - if you exclude them, criminalize their expression, they're driven to places where they operate in relative darkness, allowing their ideology to remain unchallenged and ferment. You can't change a person's mind without engaging in dialogue with them, and you can't have a dialogue without allowing them to have a voice. Freedom of speech is about keeping the line open to everyone so that we can eventually come to an enlightened relative consensus.
  - Scarblac 11y ago
    Waving nazi flags right outside Auschwitz isn't speech though.
    - darkmarmot 11y ago
      Hatred and animosity is definitely a form of speech. You're just drawing a line as to what you're allowed to hate. Carrying pictures of aborted fetuses at clinics and screaming at women attempting to get healthcare is arguable in the same vein.
      - Scarblac 11y ago
        I think that's a cultural difference between us, I would consider none of those things speech. Well, the screaming probably is, but then that's also pure aggression and intimidation and so could still have legal consequences. The kind of speech that should be protected is the kind that consists of words, viewpoints, arguments.
        zo1 11y ago
        "The kind of speech that should be protected is the kind that consists of words, viewpoints, arguments." I understand where you're coming from, but you have to understand that it's still an arbitrary line. Remember that old "First they came for[...]", well, substitute in there "First they came for those shouting non-arguments."
- ta0967 11y ago
  I'd rather have idiots throw nazi salutes than people getting real prison terms for something they said. that's what germany tried between the world wars.
- hospes 11y ago
  Freedom of speech comes with responsibility, freedom of speech does not mean you can falsely shout fire in a theater and cause a panic (paraphrasing of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion from Supreme Court ruling "Schenck v. United States" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...). When there is person or a group of people calling for genocide or enslaving of a certain group of other people (and that is what Nazis do), they clearly need to be isolated from society, because their ideas are criminal and directed against humanity. Try to apply it to yourself. Random guys walking around with shaved heads and swastikas yelling that they need to kill you, your family and everyone who belongs to your ethnic group, religion or simply "looks wrong". Are you OK with that, do you still think that is freedom of speech?
necessity 11y ago
What about socialist flags in Russia or somewhere else? They had concentration camps too.
- robin_reala 11y ago
  Or the stars and stripes in the US? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_Americans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_America... Mind you, there’s a difference between a ‘concentration camp’ and a site of mass murder.
  - necessity 11y ago
    My point is neither should be banned, not the other way around.