6 ms·

Not the same thing, but I'm always perplexed that the normally free-expression country of Germany prohibits Nazi symbols and salutes. https://en.wikipedia.org/

• hebdo 11y ago
  It is a common thing in many legal systems in Europe. Nazi/Soviet/Other victims and their descendants consider it defamation to deny various genocides or to promote particular symbols. The law you have mentioned is essetially a short-cut for legal defense against slander, and also an honorable and a fair way close the sad chapter of WWII. This is on a certain level very similar to positive discrimination regulations in the US. One could say - declare a law that states it is illegal to discriminate basing on race, gender or sexual orientation. The problem is that such a law is too weak - it does not serve its purpose in practice. Similarly, the generic and good anti-defamation law needs support in the most extreme cases.
• astrobe_ 11y ago
  When something can't do any good to anyone, but rather the contrary, it makes sense to forbid or restrict it.
  • benkuykendall 11y ago
    Do you really believe that? "Can't bring any good to anyone" is such a low bar for making something illegal. I understand restrictions in the case that an action actively hurts someone, but only permitting actions that the government deems good is a worrisome trend. Even if an action appears to do some small harm, I would argue it is often more harmful to ban it. A ban suggests enforcement and punishment, and in marginal cases, the cost of banning an action can be greater than the reward of its absence. Finally, some people believe that the ability to determine for oneself whether an action is good is a benefit in its own right. I for one would much prefer for the government not to tell me with such absolute certainty the morality of my expressions. Just my personal stance.
    • astrobe_ 11y ago
      > Do you really believe that? I do, but it's not important. I was trying to state the average point of view of European countries. > "Can't bring any good to anyone" is such a low bar for making something illegal Perhaps the wrong wording, but by this I meant "obviously" bad actions. Driving while being drunk doesn't right away cause harm (if you're lucky enough), but it is dangerous and therefore unacceptable. Hate speech doesn't cause direct harm because "that's just words after all", but hatred is dangerous and spreading it is considered not acceptable by a majority of people. > I for one would much prefer for the government not to tell me with such absolute certainty the morality of my expressions Individual rights and the rights of the People are in conflict (e.g. the right to go naked versus the right not to have to see you naked). In democratic countries, it is solved by letting the people vote laws to strike a balance between the two. At least in theory, it's not the government that tells you what moral and what is not: it's the people around you.
  • pessimizer 11y ago
    Do you mean things like homosexuality, unions, immigration and the Roma, or is it possible for people to disagree about what completely lacks merit and should be suppressed by force?
  • jqm 11y ago
    Prohibition? To be frank, the thing that does no good for anyone, but rather the contrary, is passing laws prohibiting free expression of ideas.
  • CamperBob2 11y ago
    This has the same flaw that all utilitarian arguments do: imperfect knowledge of future consequences. Specifically, by driving distasteful expression underground, you may find that you've hidden it just well enough to allow it to grow unchallenged. The antidote to bad speech -- the only antidote -- is more speech.
    • astrobe_ 11y ago
      In turn, the flaw in your argument is that you let the poison spread. You take the risk that it can spread unchallenged, or insufficiently challenged. Speech - communication - is not that much different from physical force. Some people can speak louder than others, some people speak better than others. Some people own powerful media groups and some people are trained in manipulative speech: sophists yesterday, spin doctors today. Those people are "stronger", but of course not necessarily more "right". Still, they can win. Both philosophies have their pros and cons.
      • CamperBob2 11y ago
        Speech - communication - is not that much different from physical force Spoken by someone who has clearly never been in a fight.
  • tsotha 11y ago
    Uh huh. And who makes that decision? Once you give someone that kind of power they're going to decide criticism of themselves "can't do any good to anyone, but rather the contrary".
• freehunter 11y ago
  You'll go to jail if you name your dog Adolf and teach him to do a Nazi salute. The dog didn't do it accidentally.
  • CamperBob2 11y ago
    Oh, that makes the law much more defensible. Never mind, then.
• baddox 11y ago
  Don't forget Holocaust denial, which is illegal to various extents in Germany and many other countries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial#Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial#...
  • Cyph0n 11y ago
    Even doubting the usually thrown around number of 6 million is punishable by law in countries like France. So now we can't debate the casualty count? Talk about double standards. France also did the same with the Armenian genocide recently.
    • linschn 11y ago
      That's not what the law says. The french law you are talking about gives the same force to the conclusion of the Nuremberg trials as all other justice decisions. We call that "autorité de la chose jugée". You can still discuss the body count.
    • oh_sigh 11y ago
      Can you doubt it and say it was closer to 7 million?
  • ikeboy 11y ago
    What do you think of the arguments in http://lesswrong.com/lw/ase/schelling_fences_on_slippery_slopes/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/ase/schelling_fences_on_slippery_slo... ?
    • baddox 11y ago
      I generally don't place much stock in slippery slope arguments, but it obviously depends on how confident I am about the slipperiness of a slope. I would, for instance, make the argument that a recovering alcoholic should not have even just one drink, because that's very real slope that's truly very slippery.
• ams6110 11y ago
  The USA is getting pretty close to doing the same for the so-called "Confederate Flag"
  • outside1234 11y ago
    On state public grounds, yes. You can naturally be as big an idiot as you want on your own land, and there is no doubt that that right is protected 100%.
  • tsotha 11y ago
    There are all sorts of things you can't say in the US.
• reagency 11y ago
  If you Bing [Nazi Holocaust] , it may unperplex you. Free speech is never an absolute right, and recent massacre of millions of people and losing a huge war is pretty much a textbook compelling national concern.
  • kzhahou 11y ago
    Ok, I Bing'd [Nazi Holocaust" as you said. What am I looking for exactly?
• akssri 11y ago
  Wait, there are no Hindu/Buddhist temples in Germany ?