View Full Version : German Police Arrest man with "Hitlermobil"
Passanger in station Harburg in north Germany reaact,when Adolf Hitlers voice screaming
out over perrong,Adolf Hitlers speech ending traditional nazi,”sieg heil”.
He had also a foto with svastika.
police say at he can have up to 3 years in prison!
GoldenRivet
07-05-10, 02:49 AM
Wow.
kidna have to wonder what this guy was thinking. :hmmm:
Wow.
kidna have to wonder what this guy was thinking. :hmmm: strange,however maybe he need some medical mental hospital,fore a while.....:yep:
Snestorm
07-05-10, 03:16 AM
I'm quite sure that what he had to say was unpopular with many people.
One must stop, think, and remmember, that free speech is not written into constitutions to protect popular speech, which needs no such protection.
It would seem that tyranical government has never left Germany.
It just switched to the opposite extreme.
Meaning this german government is no better than that which they condem.
When Free Speech is killed, Free Thinking is the next target.
I'm quite sure that what he had to say was unpopular with many people.
One must stop, think, and remmember, that free speech is not written into constitutions to protect popular speech, which needs no such protection.
It would seem that tyranical government has never left Germany.
It just switched to the opposite extreme.
Meaning this german government is no better than that which they condem.
When Free Speech is killed, Free Thinking is the next target. is humans right :up:
Skybird
07-05-10, 03:40 AM
I'm quite sure that what he had to say was unpopular with many people.
One must stop, think, and remmember, that free speech is not written into constitutions to protect popular speech, which needs no such protection.
It would seem that tyranical government has never left Germany.
It just switched to the opposite extreme.
Meaning this german government is no better than that which they condem.
:yawn:
With that you just have disqualified yourself. I could as well compare Obama to the KKK.
Skybird
07-05-10, 03:41 AM
is humans right :up:
And what the Nazis did and propagated (und propagate until today) - was that too "humans right"? :timeout:
And what the Nazis did and propagated (und propagate until today) - was that too "humans right"? :timeout: I say no,But thing was more,wide and this was focus on "one person". so my statment was about human right,everyone have to be free to say or think,in any case :ping:
Snestorm
07-05-10, 04:03 AM
:yawn:
With that you just have disqualified yourself. I could as well compare Obama to the KKK.
Obama, and the KKK, is an ocean away.
USA doesn't have the Free Speech problem. Germany does.
Three years in prison for violating speech regulation???!
Is this a free country we are discussing, or has sharia law kicked in already?
Snestorm
07-05-10, 04:06 AM
I say no,But thing was more,wide and this was focus on "one person". so my statment was about human right,everyone have to be free to say or think,in any case :ping:
Exactly.
We don't have to support what the person said, in order to support his right to say it.
Skybird
07-05-10, 04:24 AM
Obama, and the KKK, is an ocean away.
USA doesn't have the Free Speech problem. Germany does.
Three years in prison for violating speech regulation???!
Is this a free country we are discussing, or has sharia law kicked in already?
3 years is the maximum penalty. It can be less - and most often it is a suspedned penalty=no penlaty anyway. This is no speech regulation law. This is banning Nazi speech that is rated as "Volksverhetzung". Politicians try to manipulate and inflöuence the emdia over here the same way liek they do in the US. However, if you think you must compare the current poltical system with that of the Third Reich and german governments with Hitler, than obviosuly yopur knowledge of German history is seriously flawed, or you knowledge of current politics is serioulsy flawed, or most likely both is seriously flawed.
The world'S biggest white supremacist and Nazi network that organises and financially funds Nazi activity internationally, since long time is no longer in Germany or Europe, but the US. A racist organisation like the KKK would jhardly escape legal ban in Germany, while in the US it is tolerated in the name of free speech. at the same time, europe is blind on one eye for racist speech by Islamic hate preachers and tolerate them in the name of free speech, and radicals use free speech for wanting to ban free speech if it is critical of religion and islam - which then they would call racist.
Before telling a new post-war Germany - that has learned at least some of the lessons of history - about free speech, clean up your own house and realise how your total freedom of speech idea is fostering extremism, racism and limitation of free speech in other places outside the US, and sometimes even inside the US. ;)
As long as somebody lives not alone on a planet, he lives in a community to greater or lesser degree and varying levels of interaction, and thus his freedoms necessarily touches upon the freedoms of others, and theirs effect him in return. There cannot be "inlimited" freedom in such a setting that is different from the law of the strongest, an idea I strongly reject. It is critical to find a balance where a possible maximum of freedoms for both sides can be acchieved (and protected), a balance that is set so that the limitations for both is as minimal as possible, and a consense is reached on defining the legitimate inetrests of the community itself - an individual should not have a right to act in a way that maximises his own profit at the cost of chnaces and life quality of coming generations, for example. That is both a fragile and difficult setting to find at times, and much economic lobbying aims at just preventing right this and maximise profit making in the preent while destroying future chnaces for the next egneration. The abuse of "tolerance!" to limit free speech for the purpose to ban critical thinking of religion, is an illustration of how difficult it is and what hidden implications wait to trap the unaware. I am aware of where you come from, and in parts have symoathy. But your dogmatic ultra-maximum stand simply puts it to extremes I am not willing to support.
Nevertheless, simply demanding utopi maximums for one thing, and ignoring the deficits that cause for others, is not helpful. we have had hitler and Nazi tyranny ove rhere, and it costed us and your people as well and much of the world dearly. It is fully understamdable that the kind of thinling that led to this madness does not enjoy the same levels of tolerance and legal protection like other thoughts and opiunions do. More, I would say it is our duty to learn the lessons from 6 million Jews gassed and 56 million people killed in WWII, and making the thinking that led to these catastrophes a taboo. we must not tolerate any genocidal concept and we must not act politely on denial of historic mass murder. and certainly we must not tolerate people wanting to revive these disatrous historic events by reviving nazism again. I run a zero tolerance policy not only against religious nutheads, scientology and islam, but also against Nazism.
And our society anyway has both the right and - with regard to the next generation - even the duty to protect itself from what could or wants to destroy it. Not only Volksverhetzung and Nazi propaganda is banned in Germany, but also material, speech and deeds that aim at destzroying and overhwelming the constitutional order.
You have that in America, too. you call it "in the interest of national security".
Paul Riley
07-05-10, 04:38 AM
I'm quite sure that what he had to say was unpopular with many people.
One must stop, think, and remmember, that free speech is not written into constitutions to protect popular speech, which needs no such protection.
It would seem that tyranical government has never left Germany.
It just switched to the opposite extreme.
Meaning this german government is no better than that which they condem.
When Free Speech is killed, Free Thinking is the next target.
Very well said,screw the system and SPEAK YOUR MIND! :03:
Although what that guy did in Germany was just insane! LOL
Snestorm
07-05-10, 04:38 AM
@Skybird
We have different perceptions on this very wide subject.
I would suggest that we agree to disagree.
In the end, it is your country.
You and your fellow citizens are free to run it as you (plural) see fit.
However, you realy should not be shocked by critisizm from your northern neighbors.
Paul Riley
07-05-10, 04:40 AM
3 years is the maximum penalty. It can be less - and most often it is a suspedned penalty=no penlaty anyway. This is no speech regulation law. This is banning Nazi speech that is rated as "Volksverhetzung". Politicians try to manipulate and inflöuence the emdia over here the same way liek they do in the US. However, if you think you must compare the current poltical system with that of the Third Reich and german governments with Hitler, than obviosuly yopur knowledge of German history is seriously flawed, or you knowledge of current politics is serioulsy flawed, or most likely both is seriously flawed.
The world'S biggest white supremacist and Nazi network that organises and financially funds Nazi activity internationally, since long time is no longer in Germany or Europe, but the US. A racist organisation like the KKK would jhardly escape legal ban in Germany, while in the US it is tolerated in the name of free speech. at the same time, europe is blind on one eye for racist speech by Islamic hate preachers and tolerate them in the name of free speech, and radicals use free speech for wanting to ban free speech if it is critical of religion and islam - which then they would call racist.
Before telling a new post-war Germany - that has learned at least some of the lessons of history - about free speech, clean up your own house and realise how your total freedom of speech idea is fostering extremism, racism and limitation of free speech in other places outside the US, and sometimes even inside the US. ;)
As long as somebody lives not alone on a planet, he lives in a community to greater or lesser degree and varying levels of interaction, and thus his freedoms necessarily touches upon the freedoms of others, and theirs effect him in return. There cannot be "inlimited" freedom in such a setting that is different from the law of the strongest, an idea I strongly reject. It is critical to find a balance where a possible maximum of freedoms for both sides can be acchieved (and protected), a balance that is set so that the limitations for both is as minimal as possible, and a consense is reached on defining the legitimate inetrests of the community itself - an individual should not have a right to act in a way that maximises his own profit at the cost of chnaces and life quality of coming generations, for example. That is both a fragile and difficult setting to find at times, and much economic lobbying aims at just preventing right this and maximise profit making in the preent while destroying future chnaces for the next egneration. The abuse of "tolerance!" to limit free speech for the purpose to ban critical thinking of religion, is an illustration of how difficult it is and what hidden implications wait to trap the unaware. I am aware of where you come from, and in parts have symoathy. But your dogmatic ultra-maximum stand simply puts it to extremes I am not willing to support.
Nevertheless, simply demanding utopi maximums for one thing, and ignoring the deficits that cause for others, is not helpful. we have had hitler and Nazi tyranny ove rhere, and it costed us and your people as well and much of the world dearly. It is fully understamdable that the kind of thinling that led to this madness does not enjoy the same levels of tolerance and legal protection like other thoughts and opiunions do. More, I would say it is our duty to learn the lessons from 6 million Jews gassed and 56 million people killed in WWII, and making the thinking that led to these catastrophes a taboo. we must not tolerate any genocidal concept and we must not act politely on denial of historic mass murder. and certainly we must not tolerate people wanting to revive these disatrous historic events by reviving nazism again. I run a zero tolerance policy not only against religious nutheads, scientology and islam, but also against Nazism.
And our society anyway has both the right and - with regard to the next generation - even the duty to protect itself from what could or wants to destroy it. Not only Volksverhetzung and Nazi propaganda is banned in Germany, but also material, speech and deeds that aim at destzroying and overhwelming the constitutional order.
You have that in America, too. you call it "in the interest of national security".
:rock:
Torvald Von Mansee
07-05-10, 06:18 AM
That's weird..I don't remember driving in Germany, getting arrested, etc!!!!!
That's weird..I don't remember driving in Germany, getting arrested, etc!!!!! :haha:
Tribesman
07-05-10, 07:47 AM
One must stop, think, and remmember, that free speech is not written into constitutions to protect popular speech, which needs no such protection.
But the laws in question have nothing to do with free speech.
Three years in prison for violating speech regulation???!
No, up to three years in prison for violating the constitution.
But the laws in question have nothing to do with free speech.
No, up to three years in prison for violating the constitution.
Are you against this rights?
Tribesman
07-05-10, 08:30 AM
Are you against this rights?
What rights???????
What rights??????? :ping:
Free speech...
Skybird
07-05-10, 09:00 AM
Volksverhetzung
(German (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/German_language): "incitement of hatred by the people") is a concept in German criminal law that bans the incitement of hatred against a segment of the population. It often applies in, though it is not limited to, trials relating to Holocaust denial (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Holocaust_denial) in Germany (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Germany). The German penal code (Strafgesetzbuch (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Strafgesetzbuch)) establishes that someone is guilty of Volksverhetzung if the person:[1] (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/#cite_note-0)
in a manner that is capable of disturbing the public peace:
incites hatred against segments of the population or calls for violent or arbitrary measures against them; or
assaults the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning, or defaming segments of the population[]
There are also special provisions for holocaust denial (added in the 1990s) and speech justifying or glorifying the Nazi government 1933-1945 (recently added).
Although freedom of speech (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Freedom_of_speech) is mentioned by Article 5 of the Grundgesetz (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Grundgesetz) (Germany's constitution (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Constitution)), said article basically protects any non-outlawed speech. Restrictions exist, e.g. against personal insults, use of symbols of unconstitutional organizations, or Volksverhetzung. It is a common misconception that Volksverhetzung includes any spreading of nazism (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Nazi), racist, or other discriminatory ideas. For any hate speech (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Hate_speech) to be punishable as Volksverhetzung, the law requires that said speech be "qualified for disturbing public peace" either by inciting "hatred against parts of the populace" or calling for "acts of violence or despotism against them", or by attacking "the human dignity of others by reviling, maliciously making contemptible or slandering parts of the populace".
Volksverhetzung is a punishable offense under Section 130 of the Strafgesetzbuch (Germany's criminal code) and can lead to up to five years imprisonment. Volksverhetzung is punishable in Germany even if committed abroad and even if committed by non-German citizens, if the incitement of hatred takes effect on German territory—that is, the seditious sentiment was expressed in written or spoken German and disseminated in Germany (German criminal code's Principle of Ubiquity, Section 9 Paragraph 1 Alternatives 3 and 4 of the Strafgesetzbuch (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Strafgesetzbuch)).[2] (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/#cite_note-1)
Comparison to international laws
Further information: Hate speech (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Hate_speech)
Similar laws exist around the world, for instance:
In the UK (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/UK), incitement to ethnic or racial hatred (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Incitement_to_ethnic_or_racial_hatred) is a criminal offense under Sections 17-29 of the Public Order Act 1986 (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Public_Order_Act_1986).
In Ireland (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Ireland), the corresponding law is the 'Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act'.
A similar law exists in Sweden as "hets mot folkgrupp" ("agitation against a people"), second section 16th chapter 8§ of Criminal law.[3] (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/#cite_note-2)
The Finnish Criminal Law also includes a similar law, the crime being called "kiihottaminen kansanryhmää vastaan" in the Finnish version, "hets mot folkgrupp" in the Swedish version: 11th chapter ("On War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity"), 8§.
Article 1 [Human dignity]
(1) Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority.
(2) The German people therefore acknowledge inviolable and inalienable human rights as the basis of every community, of peace and of justice in the world.
(3) The following basic rights shall bind the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary as directly applicable law
Article 5 [Freedom of expression]
(1) Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing, and pictures and to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts and films shall be guaranteed. There shall be no censorship.
(2) These rights shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons, and in the right to personal honor.
(3) Art and scholarship, research, and teaching shall be free. The freedom of teaching shall not release any person from allegiance to the constitution.
Article 18 [Forfeiture of basic rights]
Whoever abuses the freedom of expression, in particular the freedom of the press (paragraph (1) of Article 5), the freedom of teaching (paragraph (3) of Article 5), the freedom of assembly (Article 8), the freedom of association (Article 9), the privacy of correspondence, posts and telecommunications (Article 10), the rights of property (Article 14), or the right of asylum (Article 16a) in order to combat the free democratic basic order shall forfeit these basic rights. This forfeiture and its extent shall be declared by the Federal Constitutional Court.
Section 130 Agitation of the People
(1) Whoever, in a manner that is capable of disturbing the public peace:
1. incites hatred against segments of the population or calls for violent or arbitrary measures against them; or
2. assaults the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning, or defaming segments of the population,
shall be punished with imprisonment from three months to five years.
(2) Whoever:
1. with respect to writings (Section 11 subsection (3)), which incite hatred against segments of the population or a national, racial or religious group, or one characterized by its folk customs, which call for violent or arbitrary measures against them, or which assault the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning or defaming segments of the population or a previously indicated group:
a) disseminates them;
b) publicly displays, posts, presents, or otherwise makes them accessible;
c) offers, gives or makes accessible to a person under eighteen years; or
(d) produces, obtains, supplies, stocks, offers, announces, commends, undertakes to import or export them, in order to use them or copies obtained from them within the meaning of numbers a through c or facilitate such use by another; or
2. disseminates a presentation of the content indicated in number 1 by radio,
shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine.
(3) Whoever publicly or in a meeting approves of, denies or renders harmless an act committed under the rule of National Socialism of the type indicated in Section 220a subsection (1), in a manner capable of disturbing the public piece shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine.
(4) Subsection (2) shall also apply to writings (Section 11 subsection (3)) with content such as is indicated in subsection (3).
(5) In cases under subsection (2), also in conjunction with subsection (4), and in cases of subsection (3), Section 86 subsection (3), shall apply correspondingly.
...
...
:ping:
Note: you are good in Swedish!
Tribesman
07-05-10, 09:14 AM
Free speech...
Its nothing to do with free speech, the laws that cover such Nazi stuff are under the section dealing with things like treason.
The particular subsection which covers this if intent is shown is the protection of democracy bit.
Skybird
07-05-10, 09:49 AM
:ping:
Note: you are good in Swedish!
Hm...? :06: I do not speak a single word of Swedish!
Wrong, one word: Ikea. :woot:
Edit: and Stridsvagn. How could I forget that.
Hm...? :06: I do not speak a single word of Swedish!
Wrong, one word: Ikea. :woot:
Edit: and Stridsvagn. How could I forget that. :haha:
Its nothing to do with free speech, the laws that cover such Nazi stuff are under the section dealing with things like treason.
The particular subsection which covers this if intent is shown is the protection of democracy bit. :ping:
Safe-Keeper
07-05-10, 03:32 PM
Let the poor guy go, he lives in a free country which allows him to to state his mind like everyone else.
Oh no, wait, he doesn't:-?.
Penguin
07-05-10, 03:39 PM
I guess it's not fully clear for the English-speaking people, that the topic is not about this:
http://www.historicautoattractions.com/Images/hilter2.jpg
but about this:
http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/3590/phonenazi.th.png
2nd image is from this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLuhBoTqPNc&feature=related
(at 0:30, though the whole video is worth watching, even funny if you don't speak German)
I was wondering why the guy was driving on a platform (parrong) of a train station, till I found out it is about a guy who had a mobile phone with a ringtone with a speech from Adolf. This happens when you use google translate :-?
Oh yes, and thanks to the US freedom of speech I am allowed to post an image which contains a swastika...
Let the poor guy go, he lives in a free country which allows him to to state his mind like everyone else.
Oh no, wait, he doesn't:-?. I see the picture clear :hmmm:
I figure the Germans have the right to ban and restrict nazi images in their country without being accused of violating free speech rights.
The way I see it the nazis gave up their right to speak freely in modern society because of their actions. If it were up to me we'd go after every neo nazi group worldwide with tanks and infantry and finish the job we left off back in 1945.
The only good nazi is a dead nazi.
Snestorm
07-05-10, 07:06 PM
And here is another place where the german government skates on thin ice.
"Volksverhetzung is a punishable offense under Section 130 of the Strafgesetzbuch (Germany's criminal code) and can lead to up to five years imprisonment. Volksverhetzung is punishable in Germany even if committed abroad and even if committed by non-German citizens, if the incitement of hatred takes effect on German territory—that is, the seditious sentiment was expressed in written or spoken German and disseminated in Germany (German criminal code's Principle of Ubiquity, Section 9 Paragraph 1 Alternatives 3 and 4 of the Strafgesetzbuch).[2]"
I remmember this situation arising in Denmark.
The justice minister took it upon herself to "go along with the program", and had a group of people arrested. Within 24 hours, they were released by the court, who decided to go along with the Danish Constitution, rather than "the program".
Exportation of tyranical restrictions of Freedom Of Speech are NOT acceptable.
The german people are "free" to accept tyrany within their own borders, if they so choose.
The german government however, is NOT free to export that tyrany to other lands.
Again, restrictions on Freedom Of Speech, lead to restrictions on Freedom Of Thought.
Safe-Keeper
07-05-10, 07:19 PM
I'm quite sure that what he had to say was unpopular with many people.
One must stop, think, and remmember, that free speech is not written into constitutions to protect popular speech, which needs no such protection.
It would seem that tyranical government has never left Germany.
It just switched to the opposite extreme.
Meaning this german government is no better than that which they condem.
When Free Speech is killed, Free Thinking is the next target.While this of course is an extreme statement, it does have a very good point. A long time ago, I, too, posted on a forum about how Nazis shouldn't be allowed to demonstrate, or speak their mind. As part of the ensuing discussion, someone pointed out to me that I was proposing basically the same model of freedom of speech that was in use in Nazi Germany: you can say whatever you please, with no restrictions, censorship, or fear of punishment... except from things that do not go along with the party line. In 2010 in Germany, every statement is allowed, except from statements that further a policy that goes against that of the strongly anti-Nazi government.
The punishments differ, sure, no one loses their heads, or faces firing squads, or mysteriously vanish for saying the Holocaust didn't take place. But facing up to three years of jail (more than you get for rape in many places) is still a very harsh sentence, and when it comes down to it, the sentiment -- that our cause is so all-important, so "sacred", that we simply cannot allow anyone to speak up against it, is the same.
Tribesman
07-05-10, 07:26 PM
And here is another place where the german government skates on thin ice.
Is that by any chance the incitement subsection that is used for holocaust deniers.
Snestorm
07-05-10, 07:27 PM
While this of course is an extreme statement, it does have a very good point. A long time ago, I, too, posted on a forum about how Nazis shouldn't be allowed to demonstrate, or speak their mind. As part of the ensuing discussion, someone pointed out to me that I was proposing basically the same model of freedom of speech that was in use in Nazi Germany: you can say whatever you please, with no restrictions, censorship, or fear of punishment... except from things that do not go along with the party line. In 2010 in Germany, every statement is allowed, except from statements that further a policy that goes against that of the strongly anti-Nazi government.
The punishments differ, sure, no one loses their heads, or faces firing squads, or mysteriously vanish for saying the Holocaust didn't take place. But facing up to three years of jail (more than you get for rape in many places) is still a very harsh sentence, and when it comes down to it, the sentiment -- that our cause is so all-important, so "sacred", that we simply cannot allow anyone to speak up against it, is the same.
Glad to see the point of my post did not go unnoticed.
Thank you for expanding, and clarifying further, the intent of my post.
thorn69
07-05-10, 11:08 PM
I'm quite sure that what he had to say was unpopular with many people.
One must stop, think, and remmember, that free speech is not written into constitutions to protect popular speech, which needs no such protection.
It would seem that tyranical government has never left Germany.
It just switched to the opposite extreme.
Meaning this german government is no better than that which they condem.
When Free Speech is killed, Free Thinking is the next target.
Nail on the head! :up:
While I don't agree with what the man was doing - Stupidity isn't a crime!
We see all to often how people become the monsters they thought they destroyed and how laws are used to abuse former abusers.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Hatred breeds hatred. It will continue to evolve and spread until this world ends itself in nuclear destruction.
Then the world will have to contend with SuperMutants, Feral Ghouls, RadRoaches, RadScorpions, and Molerats! Reserve your family's seat with Vault-Tec Today! :up:
Buddahaid
07-06-10, 12:02 AM
Nail on the head! :up:
While I don't agree with what the man was doing - Stupidity isn't a crime!
We see all to often how people become the monsters they thought they destroyed and how laws are used to abuse former abusers.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Hatred breeds hatred. It will continue to evolve and spread until this world ends itself in nuclear destruction.
Then the world will have to contend with SuperMutants, Feral Ghouls, RadRoaches, RadScorpions, and Molerats! Reserve your family's seat with Vault-Tec Today! :up:
Sounds like the forum members! :D
Stupidity is a crime when it leads to negligence.
Nail on the head! :up:
While I don't agree with what the man was doing - Stupidity isn't a crime!
We see all to often how people become the monsters they thought they destroyed and how laws are used to abuse former abusers.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Hatred breeds hatred. It will continue to evolve and spread until this world ends itself in nuclear destruction.
Then the world will have to contend with SuperMutants, Feral Ghouls, RadRoaches, RadScorpions, and Molerats! Reserve your family's seat with Vault-Tec Today! :up:
What the man did was absolutly insane,but I'cant say at the and of the world, will be nuclear
disaster,I say if more of us, talk and solved common issue,and have a open mind and not stand in a corner to "only" watch,act and that's give you advantage!
Kissaki
07-06-10, 12:35 PM
I figure the Germans have the right to ban and restrict nazi images in their country without being accused of violating free speech rights.
The way I see it the nazis gave up their right to speak freely in modern society because of their actions.
Hereditary sin? :-?
If it were up to me we'd go after every neo nazi group worldwide with tanks and infantry and finish the job we left off back in 1945.
The only good nazi is a dead nazi.
Yes, John Rabe was a horrible, horrible man! And wiping out anyone with an oponion we find distasteful can surely be no murder, if we can find justification in likeminded people in history. Come to think of it, the only good Democrat is a dead Democrat, because they were anti-abolitionists back in the day. And modern day Democrats - including Obama - are just as guilty as those 200 years ago and must suffer the consequences. What they have themselves actually done or not done is entirely irrelevant. :doh:
FIREWALL
07-06-10, 12:39 PM
Wow.
kidna have to wonder what this guy was thinking. :hmmm:
You hit it right on the head GR. :yep: He wasn't thinking.:haha:
You hit it right on the head GR. :yep: He wasn't thinking.:haha:
Brain missiing....:yep:
Hey, how is that:
I come to Virginia in the US and do some good ol' cross-burning if you come to Berlin in Germany, put on a SS-uniform and goose-step through the Brandenburg gate.
Deal?
Hereditary sin? :-?
[quote]Come to think of it, the only good Democrat is a dead Democrat, because they were anti-abolitionists back in the day. And modern day Democrats - including Obama - are just as guilty as those 200 years ago and must suffer the consequences. What they have themselves actually done or not done is entirely irrelevant. :doh:
When the Democrats deliberately murder 9 million people then you betcha.
[QUOTE=Kissaki;1437034]Hereditary sin? :-?
When the Democrats deliberately murder 9 million people then you betcha.
But in this case was,ono mans"no thinking at all, so what are we do for to prevent this?
Forbidd or Be my guest?
Kissaki
07-06-10, 03:06 PM
When the Democrats deliberately murder 9 million people then you betcha.
Does that mean ALL Democrats deliberately murder 9 million people? From now on and till the end of time? :-?
But in this case was,ono mans"no thinking at all, so what are we do for to prevent this?
Forbidd or Be my guest?
Yes, in this case, he fully deserved some sort of legal repercussion. I think three years is extreme, though, unless most of it is suspended. The reason this guy deserved it is because he wasn't simply voicing his opinion, he was disturbing the peace and instigating to whatever mayhem he could.
Skybird
07-06-10, 04:48 PM
Must people really be officially allowed all freedom to do maximum damage possible?
I have a problem with plticians manipulating and gagging media for party interests. I have a porblem with corproations lobbying to betray voter'S vote and nevertheless acchieve different legislation than was voted for by voters.
I have no problem with free speech restricted if it calls for the destruction of the constitutional order (and this is what it is about, if you go back to the german constitution that I quoted). I WANT Islamic hate speech banned, becasue it mitivates andlures oyung men to go to pakistan, learn how to build bombs and assassinate people from the hidden. and if there would have been a ban on racist speech and natiobnalistic propaganda in the early 30s, maybe we would have escaped a holocaust with 6 million Jews and mor eothers being slaughtered like cattle, and over 50 million killed in war, most of them civilians.
Unlimited freedom for the individual living in a community context, is just one thing, and it never is anything different: anarchy, the law of the jungle. Where your way of living touches upon the way of living of others, your freedoms find limits, necessarily. If you deny that, you only find chaos, slaughter, war.
the more private you are, the more free you can behave (as long as your action does not cause consequences for others). the more public or social you are, the more rules necessarily must limit your freedoms, else you become the bully of the block. the citical thinking must not go into that principle - it is beyond discussion. The critical thinking must go into the rules and their balancing.
From now on and till the end of time? :-?
So do you really think the Nazi party can be rehabilitated? That it some how can transform itself into something that doesn't condone wholesale dispossession, torture and murder of people who don't meet their racial purity standards?
Well I'll tell you what Kissaki. If and when the nazis ever stop advocating these things then maybe, maybe, i'll accept their continued existence in human society. Until then I say we aggressively pursue and eradicate them wherever they surface.
Skybird
07-06-10, 05:21 PM
This absolute understanding of free speech reminds me of another stupid debate that we have in Germany: people going into a terror camp in pakistan to get training for terrorist activities like building bombs, blowing trains up, or participating in jihad - could they be arrested for going there, or is it their freedom to go there and get that training, but should only be arrested if they actzally USE that training in practice? Is their motivation really still in doubt when they go there? Could one wish to get terror training for another, more peaceful purpose than doing terrorist stuff? Why do you think they try to get that training? Action holidays? Violent recreation?
Same goes for the abuse of free speech. when it is abused for directly or indirectly destroying free speech, or the constitutional order of the satate/the national community, or expresses sympathy to ideas aiming at that.
In crime movies we often follow the action with anger when we see how the victim tries to find help and protection from it'S murder, and the polcie says "sorry, as long as nothihng happened we cannot do anything for you." and when the victim finally is dead, then the police starts working. why do some of you guys not feel this kind of anger when people abuse free speech for the above mentioned purposes?
Skybird
07-06-10, 05:30 PM
@ Kissaki, could it be that you try to relativise the evil in Nazism? You give me the strong impression that you try right this. Some ideologies are inhumane from A to Z. They are not sometimes better than at other times. They were inhumane in the past, they are inhumane in the rpesent, and they will be inhumane in the future to come.
In Russia they are currently relativising Stalin's horrifying death record.
The Chinese justify the massacre on the place of heavenly peace as püolitical reason.
In America they are building a mosque near Ground Zero.
In Africa they are ignoring the Islamic genocide in Darfhur .
In Iran they deny the holocaust and make mockery of it.
And so many other examples...
Wanna fall in line with that kind of doing? :hmmm:
Yes, in this case, he fully deserved some sort of legal repercussion. I think three years is extreme, though, unless most of it is suspended. The reason this guy deserved it is because he wasn't simply voicing his opinion, he was disturbing the peace and instigating to whatever mayhem he could.[/QUOTE]
He problabley get,nothing for what he did,but in the end his behavior,tell people be more careful in the futher,
nikimcbee
07-06-10, 10:42 PM
?:06:
http://content.ytmnd.com/content/7/a/9/7a94bf8580efe5164b775ae2affb7f4b.jpg
?:06:
http://content.ytmnd.com/content/7/a/9/7a94bf8580efe5164b775ae2affb7f4b.jpg
:har::har:
Snestorm
07-07-10, 12:44 AM
[QUOTE=Kissaki;1437034]Hereditary sin? :-?
When the Democrats deliberately murder 9 million people then you betcha.
Is the number growing?
Yeshua is a requirement if hereditary sin is true,I say?
Kissaki
07-07-10, 04:03 AM
So do you really think the Nazi party can be rehabilitated? That it some how can transform itself into something that doesn't condone wholesale dispossession, torture and murder of people who don't meet their racial purity standards?
Who's talking about the Nazi party? We're talking about people, and their opinions. Do you really want a thought police?
Well I'll tell you what Kissaki. If and when the nazis ever stop advocating these things then maybe, maybe, i'll accept their continued existence in human society. Until then I say we aggressively pursue and eradicate them wherever they surface.
And how would that not qualify as murder, of the exact same kind that Hitler and Stalin perpetrated? Are you a better person simply because it's not the same groups you are persecuting? You're advocating hunting down people for their opinions, ffs. If you were talking about punishing people for their actions I could agree with you. But as it stands, I cannot respect your position. But that doesn't mean I want to see you dead.
Kissaki
07-07-10, 04:23 AM
@ Kissaki, could it be that you try to relativise the evil in Nazism? You give me the strong impression that you try right this. Some ideologies are inhumane from A to Z. They are not sometimes better than at other times. They were inhumane in the past, they are inhumane in the rpesent, and they will be inhumane in the future to come.
I'm not trying to defend Nazism in the slightest. But the whole point about freedom of speech is that we allow precisely those opinions which we do not like. It is no high mark to allow opinions you already tolerate. No society in the history of the world has ever done less.
In Russia they are currently relativising Stalin's horrifying death record.
They have done that since he was still alive and kicking.
The Chinese justify the massacre on the place of heavenly peace as püolitical reason.
This is nothing new, either.
In America they are building a mosque near Ground Zero.
They are building a cultural center which will include a mosque. Not quite the same thing. And it passed the vote with clear majority, so what's the problem?
In Africa they are ignoring the Islamic genocide in Darfhur .
In Iran they deny the holocaust and make mockery of it.
And so many other examples...
Wanna fall in line with that kind of doing? :hmmm:
I really don't see what relevance any of that has with what we are talking about. What you are doing here is fear-mongering, plain and simple. Basically what you are saying is that if we do not restrict freedom of speech - not in how it can be used, mind you, but in which people have a right to use it - bad things will happen. And as if to ram the point home, you caution that, "if you defend their rights, you must be one of them!" Something which does not make me particularly inclined to be swayed by your words.
Skybird
07-07-10, 05:04 AM
I'm not trying to defend Nazism in the slightest. But the whole point about freedom of speech is that we allow precisely those opinions which we do not like. It is no high mark to allow opinions you already tolerate.
It is not about banning an opinion that is just different to yours. It is not about disagreements on whether or not a bridge should be build, finacial polcies should be this or that, or the tatse of this or that icecream being better. It is about banning an opinion that expresses that it wants to destroy you, or is linked to something that wishes to do so. You could as well ask me to tolerate the other if he tries to murder me. Before I tolerate that, I would prefer to kill him before he has an opportunity to realise his intention regarding me. Tolerating Nazism or Islamic hate preaching means to tolerate the destruction of the constitutional democratic order as we know it today in western states. the German constitution has it very right: free thought and free opinion and free expression of such - yes to all that, but only as long as this does not call for or demands or assists in the destruction of this very constitutional order - the destruction of the constitution that right protects and guarantees free speech, free opinion and free expression.
Our freedom of speech must not tolerate and must find a limit when it comes to using free speech in order to destroy free speech.
do you know what happens to your maximum free speech if Nazism or islamic fundametalism takes over by being given the opportunity? The right of free speech is taken away from you. What do you do then? Speaking free and accept getting shot for it, or hanged, or spend lifetime terms in prison? At least your fantasy remains to be free - you can spend you years then by dreaming of having the right of free speech again thta before you have traded away so very carelessly. Sweet sweet dreams - lovely, isn't it.
there is a very nasty tendency in the modern West of trying to destroy itself and claiming that to be a sign of tolerance and freedom and cleverness. But the truth is: it just is a sign for existential boredom, stupidity, and impotence. we are so fat and tired and lazy and take freedom and peace so very much for granted, that now we are fed up with ourselves and have enough of ourselves and do not even see a need why we should need to want defdning ourselves. That is the best definition of dekadence I have ever heared - the unwillingness to even accept a reason why one may want to defend oneself.
They are building a cultural center which will include a mosque. Not quite the same thing. And it passed the vote with clear majority, so what's the problem?
The same problem it would be if a NSDAP eduaction centre would be opened near Auschwitz. You can include a public movie and a dance gym in it, and a comedy show and a stand with french fries and bratwurst, but still it would remain to be a problem if the ideology causing the massacre opens a representation near the graves of its victims.
A clear majority vote is just that: a majority vote. democracy has the problem that majority are only about quantity, but not quality. You could vote with a majority, and still vote for soemthing stupid, or bad.
antikristuseke
07-07-10, 06:01 AM
?:06:
http://content.ytmnd.com/content/7/a/9/7a94bf8580efe5164b775ae2affb7f4b.jpg
I allways find it ironically amusing how the pope is driven arround in an armoured car and that churches have lightning rods.
A great deal of faith the clergy are displaying:roll:
I allways find it ironically amusing how the pope is driven arround in an armoured car and that churches have lightning rods.
A great deal of faith the clergy are displaying:roll: Clear in your statmebt,plz!
Capt. Morgan
07-07-10, 08:05 AM
Interesting thread, but reading through it, I kept remembering this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQkcP0olmQY
Kissaki
07-07-10, 08:06 AM
It is not about banning an opinion that is just different to yours. It is not about disagreements on whether or not a bridge should be build, finacial polcies should be this or that, or the tatse of this or that icecream being better. It is about banning an opinion that expresses that it wants to destroy you, or is linked to something that wishes to do so.
No, it's not about that. If someone utters that they want certain people dead, that is a threat, and threats of bodily harm are illegal. However, it is perfectly possible to be a nazi, voicing nazi views and not have or espouse views of anyone's destruction. Mostly they simply want "undesireables" out - which in my view is bad enough, whether such views are uttered from a nazi perspective or not. And it is true that such racist and xenophobic views can easily turn to threats of violence and actual violence, but until it does, you're walking on shaky ground if you want to gag them. Not just because it will give them a legitimate reason to protest (their rights to freedom of speech), but because you then can't claim any objective justification. Where would you draw the line?
You could as well ask me to tolerate the other if he tries to murder me. Before I tolerate that, I would prefer to kill him before he has an opportunity to realise his intention regarding me. Tolerating Nazism or Islamic hate preaching means to tolerate the destruction of the constitutional democratic order as we know it today in western states. the German constitution has it very right: free thought and free opinion and free expression of such - yes to all that, but only as long as this does not call for or demands or assists in the destruction of this very constitutional order - the destruction of the constitution that right protects and guarantees free speech, free opinion and free expression.
Now you are moving way away from what we were discussing. We were discussing a person's rights to voice his opinion - NOT to make threats, and not to do it in the manner that the douchebag in the Hitlermobile did.
Our freedom of speech must not tolerate and must find a limit when it comes to using free speech in order to destroy free speech.
So people are not allowed to speak of the merits of a feudal society, for example? If they move to overthrow the government and install feudal rule, then yes, they should be stopped. But they should be allowed to believe that feudalism is the best thing since sliced bread if they want to, and should be allowed to say so.
do you know what happens to your maximum free speech if Nazism or islamic fundametalism takes over by being given the opportunity? The right of free speech is taken away from you. What do you do then? Speaking free and accept getting shot for it, or hanged, or spend lifetime terms in prison? At least your fantasy remains to be free - you can spend you years then by dreaming of having the right of free speech again thta before you have traded away so very carelessly. Sweet sweet dreams - lovely, isn't it.
Slippery slope fallacy.
there is a very nasty tendency in the modern West of trying to destroy itself and claiming that to be a sign of tolerance and freedom and cleverness.
There is every bit as much the trend for the exact opposite as well. You are hardly voicing a minority view yourself, you know.
But the truth is: it just is a sign for existential boredom, stupidity, and impotence. we are so fat and tired and lazy and take freedom and peace so very much for granted, that now we are fed up with ourselves and have enough of ourselves and do not even see a need why we should need to want defdning ourselves. That is the best definition of dekadence I have ever heared - the unwillingness to even accept a reason why one may want to defend oneself.
What do you base this on? This sounds like very sketchy psychology.
The same problem it would be if a NSDAP eduaction centre would be opened near Auschwitz. You can include a public movie and a dance gym in it, and a comedy show and a stand with french fries and bratwurst, but still it would remain to be a problem if the ideology causing the massacre opens a representation near the graves of its victims.
This is exactly the sort of thing Godwin's law comments on. First of all, the NSDAP was a political party (now defunct), with socio-political ideals. Islam is a world religion, considering of several groupings. Al Qaeda is muslim, but Islam is not Al Qaeda. Now, if it was an Al Qaeda center being built the comparison would be valid. But as it is, no.
A clear majority vote is just that: a majority vote. democracy has the problem that majority are only about quantity, but not quality. You could vote with a majority, and still vote for soemthing stupid, or bad.
Absolutely, but who gets to decide what is and is not stupid? Are you willing to overthrow the democratic process whenever you decide the decision is "stupid"? If the vote had gone the other way, you would have smiled and said, "democracy in action". But democracy means that sometimes the vote goes against your grain. That's the price we have to pay for being allowed to vote ourselves.
Ironically, by doing that this man has imitated a very different characteristic of Hitler above nazism: He is crazy :haha:
Skybird
07-07-10, 09:22 AM
@ Kissak
:nope: :nope: :nope:
Cultural and genetic supremacism as well as racism are inherent parts of Nazism, also, in order to establish the desired society and state that Nazism wants, the established democratic order that is defined and protected in our constitution in Germany and throughout the western world must be destroyed - you cannot realise Nazism within the frame of our constitution, thats why it was written the way it is: to never let come Nazism to power and infleunce again after the disaster it has brought over the world, and Germany. This overthrowing of constitutional order as well as a racism that agrees to not only discriminate but even drive away and kill certain other ethnicities or use them in a function of subordinate slaves, is what makes Nazism unacceptable, and has caused horror and terror in ammounts only rarely to be seen in history.
Either you understand this, or you don't, but I certainly do not endlessly discuss with somebody who is trying to establish a free room where Nazism can manouver and it's vitriolic mind seed can grow and blossom, over naive claims that it is all not so wild at all and just wants some foreigners out. Either you have a Nazi's agenda, or you simply have a far from complete understanding of what Nazism is, and then you better get some education about it, about fascism, and about the barbaric history of the third Reich, before making it appearing relatively harmless in a public discussion.
I save myself from dealing with the rest of that drivel of yours. For the time beeing, stay away from me. I neither like Nazis, nor people giving it any form of support or legitimation.
So do you really think the Nazi party can be rehabilitated? That it some how can transform itself into something that doesn't condone wholesale dispossession, torture and murder of people who don't meet their racial purity standards?
Well I'll tell you what Kissaki. If and when the nazis ever stop advocating these things then maybe, maybe, i'll accept their continued existence in human society. Until then I say we aggressively pursue and eradicate them wherever they surface.
When August gets something right, he gets it right.
Ironically, by doing that this man has imitated a very different characteristic of Hitler above nazism: He is crazy :haha: True understatment. :down:
Kissaki
07-07-10, 10:31 AM
@ Kissak
:nope: :nope: :nope:
Cultural and genetic supremacism as well as racism are inherent parts of Nazism, also, in order to establish the desired society and state that Nazism wants, the established democratic order that is defined and protected in our constitution in Germany and throughout the western world must be destroyed - you cannot realise Nazism within the frame of our constitution, thats why it was written the way it is: to never let come Nazism to power and infleunce again after the disaster it has brought over the world, and Germany. This overthrowing of constitutional order as well as a racism that agrees to not only discriminate but even drive away and kill certain other ethnicities or use them in a function of subordinate slaves, is what makes Nazism unacceptable, and has caused horror and terror in ammounts only rarely to be seen in history.
Wow, my post just went right over your head, didn't it? I never said the realisation of Nazi society was anything near OK, in fact I said the exact opposite: did you not see my feudalism example?
Either you understand this, or you don't, but I certainly do not endlessly discuss with somebody who is trying to establish a free room where Nazism can manouver and it's vitriolic mind seed can grow and blossom, over naive claims that it is all not so wild at all and just wants some foreigners out. Either you have a Nazi's agenda, or you simply have a far from complete understanding of what Nazism is, and then you better get some education about it, about fascism, and about the barbaric history of the third Reich, before making it appearing relatively harmless in a public discussion.If an idea is bad, it can be defeated with reason. And nazi ideology can most certainly be defeated by reason. Nazi ideology can never succeed in a society that doesn't share its irrational fears.
I save myself from dealing with the rest of that drivel of yours.You haven't dealt with any of my "drivel", Mr. Pot!
For the time beeing, stay away from me. I neither like Nazis, nor people giving it any form of support or legitimation.What has that got to do with me? Talk about being paranoid: anyone who doesn't hate what I hate to the same extent that I hate, is one of them!!!. Yes, three exclamation points. Because that's exactly what you sound like.
Slippery slope fallacy.
Your whole argument is based on the slippery slope. If it's a fallacy then so is your comparison of the Democrats and nazis or disallowing nazi propaganda leading to loosing the right of free speech.
Kissaki
07-07-10, 11:53 AM
Your whole argument is based on the slippery slope. If it's a fallacy then so is your comparison of the Democrats and nazis or disallowing nazi propaganda leading to loosing the right of free speech.
If you think I was COMPARING Democrats with Nazies, you didn't read my post. I made a parallell example, for a completely unrelated group, in order to show how silly the reasoning was, blaming people today for whatever anyone did in the past, no matter how much or how little they prescribed to the same ideas.
Anyway, the slippery slope fallacy is this: "If we allow A, then B will follow". For example, many fundamentalist Christians say that if we allow homosexuality, then animal sex and paedophilia is next.
It is not a slippery slope fallacy, however, to point out that the law must be equal for all. If we make special provisions for certain groups, which groups are singled out and by what justification?
Philosophize or prevent insane story!!
It is not a slippery slope fallacy, however, to point out that the law must be equal for all. If we make special provisions for certain groups, which groups are singled out and by what justification?
Groups which have shown by their actions what they are capabile of and those who continue to espouse similar "final solutions". By your reasoning enemy soldiers (which are exactly what neo nazi groups are) who have not yet killed should be immune from attack. Well sorry the world just does not operate that way and thank God for it. The enemy is the enemy. Pretending they are not is the only real fallacy here.
Oh and my solution for the nazis is completely fair and equal. Every one of them should be eliminated. There is no such thing as a good nazi.
disallowing nazi propaganda leading to loosing the right of free speech. Thank you! :up:
Stealth Hunter
07-07-10, 05:13 PM
police say at he can have up to 3 years in prison!
It's amusing how the Germans, in their attempts to supress the memory of Nazism in Germany, have themselves become Nazis.:nope:
It's amusing how the Germans, in their attempts to supress the memory of Nazism in Germany, have themselves become Nazis.:nope:
So in progression,I think he had to pay some money, for his behavior.....but hardly no jail,even if he deserve that.
Penguin
07-07-10, 06:47 PM
It's amusing how the Germans, in their attempts to supress the memory of Nazism in Germany, have themselves become Nazis.:nope:
<polemic mode on>
and now Ladies and Gentleman: we have a winner in Godwin's Law! Shall the calling each other "Nazi" begin?
*my right arm raises because as a German I cannot stop it*
From your signature I see that you are an US army veteran, does this make you a Nazi too? Regarding that the Nazi-US army together with other Nazi armys and Nazi-resistance fighters suppressed the poor Nazis?
</polemic mode off>
First of all: The guy, who had the Hitler-ringtone on his cell, will probably get not more than a fine, no jail time, no star on his jacket, no torture, no extermination, see the difference?
Second: I think the memory of Nazism in Germany is quite alive and healthy. You can inform yourself going to museums, memorial sites, talking to people who actually lived in this time.
Third: You can march and hail all you want in your private home in Germany, no one kicks your door in, no Gestapo takes you away - if you do it outside is a different story
Fourth: I'm all against censorship, we have ridiculous censorship laws here regarding nazi symbols and propaganda. You don't become a Nazi from looking at a swastika or reading a book. I even think the literary masterpiece "Mein Kampf" should be allowed here, prohibition makes it only interesting and the pro-Nazis can whine: "We are so suppressed!" However showing Nazi symbolism in the public is a kick into the face of all victims of fascist crimes and their families which we, believe it or not, have here in this Nazi country.
Fifth: give Nazis a place to live! Let them have their own land, maybe give them a hellhole like Leverkusen (ugliest town in Germany) - or whatever pice of land you can share. They can march all day or just sit around and hate. The problem is: they don't stop there. After getting bored with themselfes they like to expand and look for some "Lebensraum", or just beat down the next un-aryan person around them. We had this little experiment here, that they had their country, the result is well known.
I may disagree with Skybird in some matters, but he brought it exactly to the point: if you give the enemys of free speech the freedom to abolish it, they will try do so
<polemic mode on>
and now Ladies and Gentleman: we have a winner in Godwin's Law! Shall the calling each other "Nazi" begin?
*my right arm raises because as a German I cannot stop it*
From your signature I see that you are an US army veteran, does this make you a Nazi too? Regarding that the Nazi-US army together with other Nazi armys and Nazi-resistance fighters suppressed the poor Nazis?
</polemic mode off>
First of all: The guy, who had the Hitler-ringtone on his cell, will probably get not more than a fine, no jail time, no star on his jacket, no torture, no extermination, see the difference?
Second: I think the memory of Nazism in Germany is quite alive and healthy. You can inform yourself going to museums, memorial sites, talking to people who actually lived in this time.
Third: You can march and hail all you want in your private home in Germany, no one kicks your door in, no Gestapo takes you away - if you do it outside is a different story
Fourth: I'm all against censorship, we have ridiculous censorship laws here regarding nazi symbols and propaganda. You don't become a Nazi from looking at a swastika or reading a book. I even think the literary masterpiece "Mein Kampf" should be allowed here, prohibition makes it only interesting and the pro-Nazis can whine: "We are so suppressed!" However showing Nazi symbolism in the public is a kick into the face of all victims of fascist crimes and their families which we, believe it or not, have here in this Nazi country.
Fifth: give Nazis a place to live! Let them have their own land, maybe give them a hellhole like Leverkusen (ugliest town in Germany) - or whatever pice of land you can share. They can march all day or just sit around and hate. The problem is: they don't stop there. After getting bored with themselfes they like to expand and look for some "Lebensraum", or just beat down the next un-aryan person around them. We had this little experiment here, that they had their country, the result is well known.
I may disagree with Skybird in some matters, but he brought it exactly to the point: if you give the enemys of free speech the freedom to abolish it, they will try do so
so are we talking just about, free speech in any kind,so once again,this is a part in a composition government,there all have allegiance for human right!
Stealth Hunter
07-07-10, 08:32 PM
Godwin's Law really isn't much more than a humorous internet "law" pertaining to arguments and debates, to which my point was regarding neither.
Shall the calling each other "Nazi" begin?
Not really what I was going for as far as the people are concerned, but I know it's going to come to name-calling.
*my right arm raises because as a German I cannot stop it*
I'm so sorry to hear it.
From your signature I see that you are an US army veteran,
Army veteran. But not from the United States army.
does this make you a Nazi too?
Not anymore than it makes me a Fascist.
Regarding that the Nazi-US army together with other Nazi armys
Was that even a sentence?
and Nazi-resistance fighters suppressed the poor Nazis?
Again, was that even a sentence/question?
First of all: The guy, who had the Hitler-ringtone on his cell, will probably get not more than a fine, no jail time, no star on his jacket, no torture, no extermination, see the difference?
We're not discussing punishments. We're discussing censorship. And there is indeed vagrant censorship in Germany, especially towards the issue of National Socialism and the government under the NSDAP, which is what's so humorous about it all.
Second: I think the memory of Nazism in Germany is quite alive and healthy.
But we both know that the people and indeed government would like to forget it... exactly why they still use these denazification laws that have been around since the late 1940s (the Strafgesetzbuch's Article 86).
Third: You can march
I should certainly hope they'd let you move around with your legs as you'd please.
and hail all you want in your private home in Germany,
Again, I should hope so. "Sieg Heil" just means "Hail Victory".
no one kicks your door in, no Gestapo takes you away -
Though they do censor what you can and cannot own and create in your house.
http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/StGB.htm#86a
(1) Whoever:
. . . .
2. produces, stocks, imports or exports objects which depict or contain such symbols for distribution or use domestically or abroad, in the manner indicated in number 1, shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine.
(2) Symbols, within the meaning of subsection (1), shall be, in particular, flags, insignia, uniforms, slogans and forms of greeting.
This is exactly why I cannot own or play or sell a game in Germany with one swastika in it, make or own or sell a model of the KMS Bismarck (made from scratch) as she was when she sank (because, oh my god, it had swastikas painted on it!), etc. in the privacy and comfort of my own home. I remember the fiasco they had about Valkyrie (not the part about Tom Cruise playing Stauffenberg) because of the scene with the dozens of swastika flags flying as the Berlin reserves storm the Army Ministry building.
And I also know that as far as the web is concerned, they censor videos and images you can view on places like YouTube, websites you can access, etc. in the privacy of your own home because I had a friend on YouTube who lives in Hesse, Germany and was making videos about both World War I and World War II, and he had the government complain to him and make him take down one of his videos that had the Horst Wessel Song played on it. He told me that, asides from this incident, he couldn't listen to the DJ Himmler remixes of speeches given by various German figures (not just Hitler or the Nazis, but also Kaiser Wilhelm II, Field Marshal von Hindenburg, and a total remix of Der Koniggratzer. I guess they were figuring all this stuff out and able to block these videos because of his IP address.
if you do it outside is a different story
If I do inside I still have to be careful who sees it and what I do with it.
Fourth: I'm all against censorship, we have ridiculous censorship laws here regarding nazi symbols and propaganda.
Yes.
You don't become a Nazi from looking at a swastika or reading a book.
Quite right.
I even think the literary masterpiece "Mein Kampf" should be allowed here,
Yes, not only on the basis of it being an important literary work, but because censorship is something Western nations are supposed to be against.
prohibition makes it only interesting and the pro-Nazis can whine: "We are so suppressed!"
I whine about it just because it's stupid censorship. I mean, when I can be fined or imprisoned for having a copy of a video game that shows a swastika in it, you know there's something very, very wrong with the government when it does nothing to abolish this ridiculous law that was created clear back in the 1940s after World War II ended as part of the denazification program of Germany.
However showing Nazi symbolism in the public is a kick into the face of all victims of fascist crimes and their families
But how far does this extend? How far should it extend? I mean, why are model ships and planes that have swastikas on them equated to being no better than a full-sized Nazi flag being used as a public political statement, and therein banned? Even if it's just a flag on them, smaller than a penny? Why is it that swastikas in World War II-themed video games and films are banned or receive a lot of controversy as to their legality? Why do you even have laws governing this nonsense anymore? I mean it's 2010, not post-war Europe in 1945!
They can march all day or just sit around and hate. The problem is: they don't stop there. After getting bored with themselfes they like to expand and look for some "Lebensraum", or just beat down the next un-aryan person around them.
If the neo-Nazis in Germany really are that serious of a problem today as you make them out to be, and really do have that much momentum, then the denazifcation laws you're using that prohibits swastikas from appearing in video games and on models and on replicas and whatnot and censor videos containing images of the NSDAP movement, etc. are not working and have no purpose.
We had this little experiment here, that they had their country, the result is well known.
I don't know if you're aware of this or not... but it's 2010, not the 1930s or 1940s. Western nations are supposed to be against censorship, Nazism is not a real threat, the war's over, Hitler's dead, and that's that. On that note, if the neo-Nazis really are this big of a threat to your way of life and have a serious chance of gaining control of the government as they did previously (which, for the record, anybody who reads the news knows they aren't and don't have a chance of gaining control), your laws failed to stop them from resurfacing, and you should anticipate Germany to be viewed as the sick man of Europe once again.
if you give the enemys of free speech the freedom to abolish it, they will try do so
Yet we in the United States get around just fine. Yeah we have the occasional controversy pop up, mostly about the ultra-nationalists here or something to do with the Confederate States of America, but we still have free speech and they haven't gotten in control yet. Not the KKK, not the neo-Nazis, not the White Nationalists over at Stormfront, the South has NOT in fact risen again, and there's nothing going to change that. All you do when you try to suppress them is give them more momentum to work with, by making it seem like they have a legitimate reason to be pissed off.
Godwin's Law really isn't much more than a humorous internet "law" pertaining to arguments and debates, to which my point was regarding neither.
Not really what I was going for as far as the people are concerned, but I know it's going to come to name-calling.
I'm so sorry to hear it.
Army veteran. But not from the United States army.
Not anymore than it makes me a Fascist.
Was that even a sentence?
Again, was that even a sentence/question?
We're not discussing punishments. We're discussing censorship. And there is indeed vagrant censorship in Germany, especially towards the issue of National Socialism and the government under the NSDAP, which is what's so humorous about it all.
But we both know that the people and indeed government would like to forget it... exactly why they still use these denazification laws that have been around since the late 1940s (the Strafgesetzbuch's Article 86).
I should certainly hope they'd let you move around with your legs as you'd please.
Again, I should hope so. "Sieg Heil" just means "Hail Victory".
Though they do censor what you can and cannot own and create in your house.
http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/StGB.htm#86a
(1) Whoever:
. . . .
2. produces, stocks, imports or exports objects which depict or contain such symbols for distribution or use domestically or abroad, in the manner indicated in number 1, shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine.
(2) Symbols, within the meaning of subsection (1), shall be, in particular, flags, insignia, uniforms, slogans and forms of greeting.
This is exactly why I cannot own or play or sell a game in Germany with one swastika in it, make or own or sell a model of the KMS Bismarck (made from scratch) as she was when she sank (because, oh my god, it had swastikas painted on it!), etc. in the privacy and comfort of my own home. I remember the fiasco they had about Valkyrie (not the part about Tom Cruise playing Stauffenberg) because of the scene with the dozens of swastika flags flying as the Berlin reserves storm the Army Ministry building.
And I also know that as far as the web is concerned, they censor videos and images you can view on places like YouTube, websites you can access, etc. in the privacy of your own home because I had a friend on YouTube who lives in Hesse, Germany and was making videos about both World War I and World War II, and he had the government complain to him and make him take down one of his videos that had the Horst Wessel Song played on it. He told me that, asides from this incident, he couldn't listen to the DJ Himmler remixes of speeches given by various German figures (not just Hitler or the Nazis, but also Kaiser Wilhelm II, Field Marshal von Hindenburg, and a total remix of Der Koniggratzer. I guess they were figuring all this stuff out and able to block these videos because of his IP address.
If I do inside I still have to be careful who sees it and what I do with it.
Yes.
Quite right.
Yes, not only on the basis of it being an important literary work, but because censorship is something Western nations are supposed to be against.
I whine about it just because it's stupid censorship. I mean, when I can be fined or imprisoned for having a copy of a video game that shows a swastika in it, you know there's something very, very wrong with the government when it does nothing to abolish this ridiculous law that was created clear back in the 1940s after World War II ended as part of the denazification program of Germany.
But how far does this extend? How far should it extend? I mean, why are model ships and planes that have swastikas on them equated to being no better than a full-sized Nazi flag being used as a public political statement, and therein banned? Even if it's just a flag on them, smaller than a penny? Why is it that swastikas in World War II-themed video games and films are banned or receive a lot of controversy as to their legality? Why do you even have laws governing this nonsense anymore? I mean it's 2010, not post-war Europe in 1945!
If the neo-Nazis in Germany really are that serious of a problem today as you make them out to be, and really do have that much momentum, then the denazifcation laws you're using that prohibits swastikas from appearing in video games and on models and on replicas and whatnot and censor videos containing images of the NSDAP movement, etc. are not working and have no purpose.
I don't know if you're aware of this or not... but it's 2010, not the 1930s or 1940s. Western nations are supposed to be against censorship, Nazism is not a real threat, the war's over, Hitler's dead, and that's that. On that note, if the neo-Nazis really are this big of a threat to your way of life and have a serious chance of gaining control of the government as they did previously (which, for the record, anybody who reads the news knows they aren't and don't have a chance of gaining control), your laws failed to stop them from resurfacing, and you should anticipate Germany to be viewed as the sick man of Europe once again.
Yet we in the United States get around just fine. Yeah we have the occasional controversy pop up, mostly about the ultra-nationalists here or something to do with the Confederate States of America, but we still have free speech and they haven't gotten in control yet. Not the KKK, not the neo-Nazis, not the White Nationalists over at Stormfront, the South has NOT in fact risen again, and there's nothing going to change that. All you do when you try to suppress them is give them more momentum to work with, by making it seem like they have a legitimate reason to be pissed off.
They have plenty to work,so they can or will to solve this commen Q all the time,and the must stir-it up from begning,so this person did was a kind of alarm clock" to goverment.....
Snestorm
07-07-10, 09:47 PM
It's amusing how the Germans, in their attempts to supress the memory of Nazism in Germany, have themselves become Nazis.:nope:
It's also interesting that people in the formerly occupied countries can see this so easily, while many germans themselves can not.
Stealth Hunter
07-07-10, 10:37 PM
It's also interesting that people in the formerly occupied countries can see this so easily, while many germans themselves can not.
Indeed.:yep:
It's also interesting that people in the formerly occupied countries can see this so easily, while many germans themselves can not.
Stable and well-timed unrestricted,statment!
Skybird
07-08-10, 04:27 AM
It's also interesting that people in the formerly occupied countries can see this so easily, while many germans themselves can not.
Maybe that is because American cities remained intact during the war, never where flown over by hundreds of bombers and turned into rubble, while in modern German cities today you still see the marks of the war, and many German families still have survivors or had survivors of the Nazi era until just recently.
You guys see it very biased and very simplistic from where you are. My main argument none of you have been able to neutralise, though. If you think this is so unfree a country, I recommend you just stay away and do never consider to visit Germany like during the world championship four years ago, where hundreds of thousands of people from foreign countries were intimidated by authorities to report how great and free a place this is - and how surprisingly different. ;) You might end up in police arrest over saying your foreign opinion, you know. and who knows what kind of terrors are happening in the cellars of the police station, in this supressive fourth reich of ours. ;)
Penguin
07-08-10, 07:29 AM
so are we talking just about, free speech in any kind,so once again,this is a part in a composition government,there all have allegiance for human right!
I was talking about freedom of speech, which I defended and about giving the opportunity to abolish freedom to the people who fight against a free society, which I oppose. Basically the same concept like criminals are treated in most societies, you infringe other peoples rights, you lose some of your rights - at least for an amount of time. Unrestricted freedom is (sadly) an utopia.
The german constitution covers this aspect with some basic rights the people have, which cannot be ablolished and the "right to resist" against anyone who tries to do so.
After reading the second sentence a few times, I still don't get behind it, can you write this again, please?
And do you have a link to swedish censorship laws, like laws who limit Tryckfrihetsförordningen (swedish freedom of information law), please no law texts, but something to read for us non-lawyers :03:. Tack!
I was talking about freedom of speech, which I defended and about giving the opportunity to abolish freedom to the people who fight against a free society, which I oppose. Basically the same concept like criminals are treated in most societies, you infringe other peoples rights, you lose some of your rights - at least for an amount of time. Unrestricted freedom is (sadly) an utopia.
The german constitution covers this aspect with some basic rights the people have, which cannot be ablolished and the "right to resist" against anyone who tries to do so.
After reading the second sentence a few times, I still don't get behind it, can you write this again, please?
And do you have a link to swedish censorship laws, like laws who limit Tryckfrihetsförordningen (swedish freedom of information law), please no law texts, but something to read for us non-lawyers :03:. Tack!
The Swedish
Personal Register Law
A new Swedish law about handling of personal information in computers took effect on 24 October 1998. The law makes much of the publication of information about individual persons on the Internet illegal, such as criticism of named persons, publication of lists of references in scientific papers or the sending of e-mail messages outside of Europe.
This law is based on an EU directive Rating , and all EU countries are thus obliged to enact similar laws. The critique of the law in Sweden discussed below, has, however, not been voiced in other countries than Sweden (when this is written, July 1999).
The law was changed in November 1999 because of the massive criticism of the law.
In November 2000, the Commission of the European Communities asked member countries for their experience with the directive.
Summary of the Swedish
Personal Register Law
The object of the law is to protect against invasion of privacy through handling of personal information. The law defines "handling of personal information" as any handling of personal information, automatic or manual, like collection, registering, organizing, storing, treatment or change, retrieval, use or transmission, publication, collating, blocking or deleting. This law, however, only applies to handling of information which is wholly or partly automatic (for example by using computers), or which is contained in a structured collection of personal information available for search or retrieval.
Personal information is defined as any kind of information, which directly or indirectly refers to a living physical person.
The law specifies exceptions where the law is not valid: Wholly private registers handled by a single person for his or her personal needs, registers published in newspapers, books or broadcast programs, registers used only by journalists, authors or artists.
The law may not be as dangerous as it sounds
The law may not be as dangerous as it sounds, since there has been a very heated debate about the law in Sweden, and it is possible that the law will not in reality be upheld in ways which endanger freedom of speech. Because of this, many providers of services in Sweden have chosen to continue as before until anyone really is prosecuted according to the new law.
Requirements on treatment
of personal information
Personal information may only be handled for specified and justifiable goals. Collected information may only be used for the purpose, for which it was collected. Personal information must be correct and up-to-date and must not be kept longer time than needed for the purpose of the collection.
Personal information may only be handled with permission from the person, whose information is handled, or for certain other justified uses.
Sensitive information
It is not permitted to handled personal information which reveals race or ethnic origin, religious or political opinions, membership in trade unions and information about health or sexual behaviour. There are a few exceptions from this, a society may handle information who are its members, even though the organization is connected to a particular religious faith or political view, and medical organizations may handle medical information about their patients, researchers may handle information for research purposes and such information may also be handled or published with permission from the person, whose information is handled.
Transmission to third countries
Personal information may not be transmitted outside of Europe without permission from the person, whose information is handled, except with explicit permission from this person, to fulfill legal obligations or to protect vital interests.
Control and punishment
The upholding of the law is controlled by a special government agency, the Data Inspection Agency, and breaking the law may be punished through damages to the registered person, fines and prison up to two years.
Critique of the act
Publication of information
on the Internet would be illegal
If you interpret the act literally, it would mean that the following acts would be illegal:
* Writing of an e-mail message to a recipient outside Europe without the prior permission of the recipient.
* All Internet-based discussion forums (except those run by newspapers, since newspapers are excempt from the law) in which any information about a person is mentioned without the permission of that person.
* Publication on the Internet of any scientific paper, which contains lists of references, unless each person in the list of reference has given permission in advance.
* Any criticism of a named person, where that person does not give permission for the criticism. For example, criticism of politicians would not be allowed, a trade union would not be allowed to criticize named employers, etc.
This does not agree very well with the Swedish constitution, which says that society should protect the rights of citizens to communicate with each other, especially communication about political and religious issues. However, the constitution contains a clause saying that the rights to communicate can be restricted in order to protect personal privacy, so the lawmakers claim that the law is not in contradiction to the constitution.
Why are some vocations exempted
The law has also been criticized for the exemption for authors, journalists and artists: Freedom of speech should be a right for everyone, not only for certain vocations.
The law is not needed
Criticism of the law has also said that the law is not needed, since there are other laws, like laws about racial agitation, defamation of character, etc. which are better ways than this law to regulate unwanted communication.
Will the law really be upheld
The previous Data Act, which the new law replaces, also made most of the Internet illegal. However, this law has only been upheld by the government very irregularly. In one case, an online forum was forbidden to discuss political and religious issues, in another case, an author was forbidden to write his book using a computer. In the second case, however, this decision was revoked on appeal to the government. The new act, however, does not allow appeals to the government, only to courts of law, which can be expected to follow the words of the law. Local governments have been forbidden from publishing notes from their meetings on the Internet. In most cases, however, personal information has been published on the Internet without repressional acts from the government.
Probably, the new law will also not be upheld, but the risk that the government can apply the law, when something is published, which they do not like, has been said to be an argument against the new law.
The agency responsible for upholding the law, the Data Inspection Agency, says that it will strictly interpret the letter of the law, but that they may, because of limited time, not have time to act against uncontroversial information, like naming the nobel prize winners on the Internet.
Is Sweden forced by
the European Union
to enact this law?
The law was passed by the Swedish parliament with only the small liberal party and a few stragglers from other parties voting against it. When asked why they passed a law which restricts freedom of speech in this way, they say that they had to pass this law, in order to fulfill a directive (in Swedish Rating and in English Rating ) from the European Union.
However, opponents of the law says that this directive was not meant to be applied to publication of personal information, it was only meant to be applied to structured collections of personal information. Also structured collections would however cause problems, for example a list of references in a scientific paper is obviously a structured collection and would thus be illegal, unless each of the authors of the papers in the reference list gave their permission, and to obtain such permission would often be very difficult.
Will the government amend the law
Because of the criticism, the government has asked the Data Inspection Agency to investigate, whether publication of local government protocols and some other publication might be exempted from the law.
History of the law
Sweden was one of the first European countries to get a law about computers and personal privacy. This law was accepted in its first version by the Swedish parliament in 1973. The law in its initial form required all data bases of personal information to get permission from a special "Data Protection Agency" of the Swedish government, and this agency should not allow data bases which infringe on personal privacy. In particular, data bases containing certain so-called sensitive information, such as about political and religious believs, race and ethnic origin, illnesses and sexual behaviour, were only allowed under very special circumstances.
I was one of the few people who already during the 1970s raised the issue of the conflict between this act and freedom of speech. In 1978, I applied for permission to run a BBS. I wrote in my application that we intended people to be able to send messages to each other on any topic they needed to communicate about. My application was denied in 1978. After talks to the agency, we wrote a new application where we promised not to allow messages giving information about the senstive areas, and promised to delete all messages after two years.
I strongly criticized the data protection agency at that time, and said that even though the Swedish constitution specially safeguards the right to communicate on politics and religion, we were forbidden from such communication. We started our BBS, and in fact we did have political and religiuous discussions in it, and the data protection agency never tried to stop us from doing this. So already at that time, the law was not very much implemented in reality in applications where people send messages and documents to each other.
I also did not delete old messages after two years, again, the data inspection agency did not do anything to enforce its ruling. After that, of course, we got more and more BBSes and e-mail systems and the Internet. The data protection agency very seldom tried to restrict this. Mainly, they said no if you asked for permission, but very few people were silly enough to ask for permission.
One person was a Swedish author, who asked for permission to use a computer to write a book (containing factual information about people, and thus a "personal information data base" according to the law). The data inspection agency said no! But he appealed to the government, and the government said yes, it said that freedom of speech was more important than the data protection act in this case. After that, the most controversial issues has been that certain local governments in Sweden have put up web pages with notes from their meetings, which often contained names of existing people. The data inspection agency has tried to restrict this.
Recent changes to the law
The Swedish parliament has in November 1999 decided some modifications to the law in reaction to the critics it has received. The changes are that minor violations of the law will not be punished. Damage may however have to be paid also for minor violations of the law. Another change is that personal information can be exported, provided that the recipient upholds reasonable privacy control.
Many parties in the parliament wanted more changes. The liberal party wanted to specify in the law, that the law should not be used to infringe on the freedom of speech, and also wanted to disallow damages for minor violations of the law.
Several parties asked the Swedish government to try to get EU to change its data directive, based on the model that the law should specify what is forbidden, and not be valid for so much permitted information.
Snestorm
07-08-10, 08:21 AM
Maybe that is because American cities remained intact during the war, never where flown over by hundreds of bombers and turned into rubble, while in modern German cities today you still see the marks of the war, and many German families still have survivors or had survivors of the Nazi era until just recently.
My uncle still lives, remmembers, and speaks of those days "when a man was not master in his own home". He was in the danish resistance. As much as he hates nazis, that's not what got Germany bombed, and almost an entire generation of males killed. It was expansionism!
Germany has the right to make any law they wish within their own borders.
Germany does not have the right to hold foreign nationals liable as crimminals, for violating german "hate speech" laws, in THEIR own lands. Some of our lands hold Freedom Of Speech as sacred. (And yes, the danish constitution of 1957 is molded largely on USA's constitution, plus about 180 years of hindsight.)
Schroeder
07-08-10, 08:42 AM
It's amusing how the Germans, in their attempts to supress the memory of Nazism in Germany, have themselves become Nazis.:nope:
You can't be serious.:o
Penguin
07-08-10, 08:48 AM
Godwin's Law really isn't much more than a humorous internet "law" pertaining to arguments and debates, to which my point was regarding neither.
yup, but it is amazing how often the "law" is true
Not really what I was going for as far as the people are concerned, but I know it's going to come to name-calling.
sorry, but you started the name-calling, by claiming that todays Germans - not the German state or government - became Nazis, which is offensive and insulting.
Talking about sentences: can you elaborate the first part of it? I don't get the meaning, look like something's missing.
Army veteran. But not from the United States army.
Not anymore than it makes me a Fascist.
Was that even a sentence?
Again, was that even a sentence/question?
cmon, don't be a grammar-Nazi ;) and have some mercy with a guy who had some beers while supporting his football team. I was making fun of your statement, that anyone who supresses Nazis is a Nazi by himself. Following your logic makes this any army and individuals who fought against the third Reich Nazis, as a fight is the ultimate form of suppression.
We're not discussing punishments. We're discussing censorship. And there is indeed vagrant censorship in Germany, especially towards the issue of National Socialism and the government under the NSDAP, which is what's so humorous about it all.
not defending censorship here, but isn't this a little comprehensible given our history?
Though they do censor what you can and cannot own and create in your house.
http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/StGB.htm#86a
(1) Whoever:
. . . .
2. produces, stocks, imports or exports objects which depict or contain such symbols for distribution or use domestically or abroad, in the manner indicated in number 1, shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine.
(2) Symbols, within the meaning of subsection (1), shall be, in particular, flags, insignia, uniforms, slogans and forms of greeting.
to be fair, you should also quote subsection 3 of §86, which also applies to §86a:
(3) Subsection (1) shall not be applicable if the means of propaganda or the act serves to further civil enlightenment, to avert unconstitutional aims, to promote art or science, research or teaching, reporting about current historical events or similar purposes.
This is exactly why I cannot own or play or sell a game in Germany with one swastika in it, make or own or sell a model of the KMS Bismarck (...), etc. in the privacy and comfort of my own home. I remember the fiasco they had about Valkyrie (not the part about Tom Cruise playing Stauffenberg) because of the scene with the dozens of swastika flags flying as the Berlin reserves storm the Army Ministry building.
"stocks"in §86a applies more to manufacturers/vendors, meaning having an amount of this stuff - it doesn't mean private ownership of one item.
When I made models, the shop blackened out the swastikas from the manual and took out the decals to follow the law. I agree on this being stupid, as this tempers with historic accuracy.
The filming of Valkyre was hardly a fiasco or scandal here, just some tourists were wondering about huge nazi banners flying around, when people realized that a movie was shot, no one was offended. I guess the media overseas made a hype about that.
And I also know that as far as the web is concerned, they censor videos and images you can view on places like YouTube, websites you can access, etc. in the privacy of your own home because I had a friend on YouTube who lives in Hesse, Germany and was making videos about both World War I and World War II, and he had the government complain to him and make him take down one of his videos that had the Horst Wessel Song played on it. He told me that, asides from this incident, he couldn't listen to the DJ Himmler remixes of speeches given by various German figures (not just Hitler or the Nazis, but also Kaiser Wilhelm II, Field Marshal von Hindenburg, and a total remix of Der Koniggratzer. I guess they were figuring all this stuff out and able to block these videos because of his IP address.
YouTube does it, to follow the german law. Sony does the same, many vids which contain material from Sony are blocked here on YT. They prohibit certain IPs - in this case all german ones- from accessing certain material.
In the internet age, this is stupid and obsolute and infringes on freedom of information. However DJ Himmler should be banned solely for being musical garbage :O:
If I do inside I still have to be careful who sees it and what I do with it.
same as US laws about drinking or having sex on your property, if someone can see it = forbidden, just for comparision.
Yes, not only on the basis of it being an important literary work, but because censorship is something Western nations are supposed to be against.
calling "Mein Kampf" literature was meant ironic, everyone who read a part of it will agree on this. Second sentence: true
I whine about it just because it's stupid censorship. I mean, when I can be fined or imprisoned for having a copy of a video game that shows a swastika in it......
I didn't say you whine about it, I said pro-nazis whine about it.
As said before: private ownership of these items is not forbidden. I can state that I have video games with swastikas in a public forum like this, nothing will happen.
Oh s..t, who's knocking on my door? Aarrghhhh....:haha:
If the neo-Nazis in Germany really are that serious of a problem today as you make them out to be, and really do have that much momentum, then the denazifcation laws you're using that prohibits swastikas from appearing in video games and on models and on replicas and whatnot and censor videos containing images of the NSDAP movement, etc. are not working and have no purpose.
Please show me where I wrote that neo-nazis are the biggest threat to Germany? Dangerous? Certainly, like many other groups who fight against freedom. Shortly before storming the Reichstag? I'm glad this isn't so. There are certain areas where you are likely to meet more of them, but my guess is the percentage of neo-nazis we have here is about the same as in other western countries, with or withour censorship laws.
I don't know if you're aware of this or not... but it's 2010, not the 1930s or 1940s. Western nations are supposed to be against censorship, Nazism is not a real threat, the war's over, Hitler's dead, and that's that. On that note, if the neo-Nazis really are this big of a threat to your way of life and have a serious chance of gaining control of the government as they did previously (which, for the record, anybody who reads the news knows they aren't and don't have a chance of gaining control), your laws failed to stop them from resurfacing, and you should anticipate Germany to be viewed as the sick man of Europe once again.
Thanks for reminding me! *checking my watch*
I was claiming that when fascists get together with their comrades, they likely infringe on other people rights who are nearby and are not "Übermensch" enough. Experiences from gatherings, concerts, demonstrations, etc. prove this point.
All you do when you try to suppress them is give them more momentum to work with, by making it seem like they have a legitimate reason to be pissed off.
that is what I wrote about giving the Nazis a reason to whine.
Let's allow them to wear swazi-shirts, makes it easier for target pratice...:arrgh!:
To make a long statement short: giving people the chance to voice their opinons = good, using free speech to abolish free speech = bad
and certainly there are many gray areas in this matter
Penguin
07-08-10, 09:14 AM
It's also interesting that people in the formerly occupied countries can see this so easily, while many germans themselves can not.
As far as I know, Poland, the Netherlands, France, Italy, Hungary have comparible laws as Germany, not being "easy-going" and banning Nazi symbols. Danmark and Finland don't have these lwas. I don't know about other (formerly occupied) countries
<polemic mode on>
and now Ladies and Gentleman: we have a winner in Godwin's Law! Shall the calling each other "Nazi" begin?
*my right arm raises because as a German I cannot stop it*
From your signature I see that you are an US army veteran, does this make you a Nazi too? Regarding that the Nazi-US army together with other Nazi armys and Nazi-resistance fighters suppressed the poor Nazis?
</polemic mode off>
First of all: The guy, who had the Hitler-ringtone on his cell, will probably get not more than a fine, no jail time, no star on his jacket, no torture, no extermination, see the difference?
Second: I think the memory of Nazism in Germany is quite alive and healthy. You can inform yourself going to museums, memorial sites, talking to people who actually lived in this time.
Third: You can march and hail all you want in your private home in Germany, no one kicks your door in, no Gestapo takes you away - if you do it outside is a different story
Fourth: I'm all against censorship, we have ridiculous censorship laws here regarding nazi symbols and propaganda. You don't become a Nazi from looking at a swastika or reading a book. I even think the literary masterpiece "Mein Kampf" should be allowed here, prohibition makes it only interesting and the pro-Nazis can whine: "We are so suppressed!" However showing Nazi symbolism in the public is a kick into the face of all victims of fascist crimes and their families which we, believe it or not, have here in this Nazi country.
Fifth: give Nazis a place to live! Let them have their own land, maybe give them a hellhole like Leverkusen (ugliest town in Germany) - or whatever pice of land you can share. They can march all day or just sit around and hate. The problem is: they don't stop there. After getting bored with themselfes they like to expand and look for some "Lebensraum", or just beat down the next un-aryan person around them. We had this little experiment here, that they had their country, the result is well known.
I may disagree with Skybird in some matters, but he brought it exactly to the point: if you give the enemys of free speech the freedom to abolish it, they will try do so
Germany is turning into a police state.
Americans value greatly
Do you krauts even know what freedom of expression is? It is something that most .
If someone wants to wear nazi symbols, what right do you have to stop him?
I heard that Germany forced all people whose last name was Hitler to change their
family name. Is that true?
Schroeder
07-08-10, 10:09 AM
Germany is turning into a police state.
Do you actually have any idea what a police state is? I bet not!
Do you krauts even know what freedom of expression is? It is something that most .
Thanks for the insult. Couldn't make sense of your second sentence.
If someone wants to wear nazi symbols, what right do you have to stop him?
The right to make sure that no one mocks the millions of victims that Nazis have caused.
I heard that Germany forced all people whose last name was Hitler to change their
family name. Is that true?Never heard of that and since we still have many Görings, Himmlers etc. I don't think so.
Do you actually have any idea what a police state is? I bet not!
Thanks for the insult. Couldn't make sense of your second sentence.
The right to make sure that no one mocks the millions of victims that Nazis have caused.
Never heard of that and since we still have many Görings, Himmlers etc. I don't think so. And you must see,this perspective in different work of fiction.
Schroeder
07-08-10, 10:47 AM
And you must see,this perspective in different work of fiction.
Excuse me, I don't understand that sentence.
What do you mean by "work of fiction"?:doh:
Excuse me, I don't understand that sentence.
What do you mean by "work of fiction"?:doh:
futuristic or utopia!
UnderseaLcpl
07-08-10, 11:01 AM
I, for one, am tired of seeing Germany sit on the stool of eternal guilt for this whole "Nazi" thing. Seriously. Yes, the Nazis were evil and yes, what they did to the Jews was atrocious, but I didn't see an army of Jews descending upon Rwanda to stop the genocide there, so I guess they're not sore about it anymore. I know it's hard, being Germans and all, but you guys can relax now. Nobody in their right minds really believes all that BS propaganda the rest of the world had to manufacture to justify going to war with you to save the military dictatorship of Poland so we could hand it over to the Soviets later. God forbid that Germany annex a city of Germans who wanted to be reunified anyway:roll: Heck, I bet there are a number of Eastern European states who wish you had won the war. At the outset, a lot of other western nations were also hoping that Germany would win out against the Soviets.
In any case, nobody who matters has anything against you. It's nice that you're all anti-nazi, but let's not abridge free speech and natural human rights out of guilt. All those neo-nazis ever do is make fools out of themselves, anyway. The war is over, you're still a great country, let's all move on, shall we? The rest of us could use a little traditional Prussian military excellence in beating some sense into the jihadists.:rock:
Skybird
07-08-10, 11:23 AM
I, for one, am tired of seeing Germany sit on the stool of eternal guilt for this whole "Nazi" thing. Seriously. Yes, the Nazis were evil and yes, what they did to the Jews was atrocious, but I didn't see an army of Jews descending upon Rwanda to stop the genocide there, so I guess they're not sore about it anymore. I know it's hard, being Germans and all, but you guys can relax now. Nobody in their right minds really believes all that BS propaganda the rest of the world had to manufacture to justify going to war with you to save the military dictatorship of Poland so we could hand it over to the Soviets later. God forbid that Germany annex a city of Germans who wanted to be reunified anyway:roll: Heck, I bet there are a number of Eastern European states who wish you had won the war. At the outset, a lot of other western nations were also hoping that Germany would win out against the Soviets.
In any case, nobody who matters has anything against you. It's nice that you're all anti-nazi, but let's not abridge free speech and natural human rights out of guilt. All those neo-nazis ever do is make fools out of themselves, anyway. The war is over, you're still a great country, let's all move on, shall we? The rest of us could use a little traditional Prussian military excellence in beating some sense into the jihadists.:rock:
While I know what you mean with Germany hiding over an excuse of being guilty, nevertheless confronting Nazism has nothing to do with guilt, but understanding what it is. I don'T agree often with August, but as I said: where he is right, he's right. I have absolutely no problem with freedom of speech - and nevertheless kicking the sh!t out of every Nazi or Islamist there is. Indeed, only a dead Nazi is a Nazi that can be tolerated. i say that loud and clear, and I do not care fpor people beign irritated and yelling out loud. Nazism should not be considered to be something that eventually, under some circumstances, you can get an arrangement with. Nazism is cultural hydrophobia. kill it wereever you find it, without remors, regret or hesitation - kill it. My tolerance for the existence of others ends where the others do not tolerate me. My willingness for free speech ends were the others use free speech to directly or indirectly demand or support the abandoning of free speech. Our constitution sees it the way I just put it in words. I want to remind you all that certain parts of the constitution of Germany were formed and formulated under massive influence and advise and demand by the allied victors, namely America and France.
Some of the absolutist claims made in this thread are hair-raisingly absurd, and hilarious, and insane. I am aware of politicians trying to gaggle media or to intimidate wistleblowers, that is not only A problem with the EU and the German govenrment only , but maybe an even greater problem with the American government. First the new legal rules by Bush to fight against wistleblowers and limit the press' access to insiders giving precious information, now Obama systematically deleting any non-systematical, well-organised statement or press conference, keeping the press away from anything worth to be reported as best as he can, passing rules to keep yournalists from any scnee of tjhe crime so that any falure or helpless ness by the adminstration cannot be oberseved and reported on. before the election, he did spontanous remarks and speeches without preparation. Now he does not even reply to a schoolkid without reading question and reply from the teleprompter. What a blender.
Some American voices in this thread may want to consider the poor state of their own house before continuing to bash Germany over rules we have considering "Volksverhetzung". We are anti-Nazi over here because by own experience we Germans know bettet than anyone else what Nazism means, with the expection of Jews.
UnderseaLcpl
07-08-10, 11:37 AM
Some American voices in this thread may want to consider the poor state of their own house before continuing to bash Germany over rules we have considering "Volksverhetzung". We are anti-Nazi over here before by own experience we know bettet than anyone else what Nazism means.
Fair enough, but we are trying to put our house in order, so to speak. We just all have different ideas about what order that should be. I know you're not a fan of my lassiez-faire outlook on economics and my insistence upon seriously limited government, but there are a number of Americans who share those views and we are trying to get our noses out of your business. If nothing else, please believe that a less state-heavy America would have neither the time nor the resources to interfere in the affairs of other sovereign nations.
In any case, what Germany does is it's own business, but I'd rather see a strong and free Germany than a leashed and censored one.
Skybird
07-08-10, 11:49 AM
but I'd rather see a strong and free Germany than a leashed and censored one.
So would I, but being anti-Nazi, and the constitution's rules on when free speech finds necessary limits, and free speech, all are three very different things.
So would I, but being anti-Nazi, and the constitution's rules on when free speech finds necessary limits, and free speech, all are three very different things.
True in fact, :yep:
German man has been locked up for six months for having set a speech by Adolf Hitler as his mobile phone ringtone.
Snestorm
07-12-10, 03:30 PM
German man has been locked up for six months for having set a speech by Adolf Hitler as his mobile phone ringtone.
A sad state of affairs.
Skybird
07-12-10, 03:38 PM
A sad state of affairs where propaganda by Hitler is being excused with "free speech".
Tell me one thing, Snestorm. When free speech is used to spread that kind of propaganda, and the propaganda is successful and a sufficient ammount of the population follows it again like it already once did, and thus the people revolt in a coup or by democratic elections overthrow the democratic order in a Germany that your grandfather's' generation have fought and maybe died for in order to establish it and to overthrow that Nazi regime back then, and germany again would become a Nazi tyranny today and demands Lebensraum and Arien superiority and we attack France and Poland again and have KZs, and in the following years again some dozen of million people find death because of us having had free speech and thus: nazi-tyranny and antisemtic progromes again while at the same time we have shut down free speech to protect our newly won Nazi tyranny from criticism and opposition - would that be okay for you? :stare: After all, these things would have become strong again - because you willed them the space and opportunity to grow strong again.
Snestorm
07-12-10, 03:49 PM
It's Extreme Left policies, that feed and nourish the Extreme Right.
Perhaps it's time to examine some more recent policies, like multiculturalism, mass immigration, and islamisationism, and see what went wrong.
Skybird
07-12-10, 04:01 PM
That is no answer to my question.
has been locked up for six months for having set a speech by Adolf Hitler as his mobile According to The Daily Telegraph, the 54-year-old man had the Hitler speech as his ringtone, in which the Fuhrer pledged the 'destruction of world Jewry' if Germany was 'dragged' into cording to the paper, he was arrested at Harburg station on Tuesday, near the northern city of Hamburg, when his fellow passengers, shocked with the ringtone, swastika stickers, and a photo of Hitler on the telephone with the words 'The greatest commander of all time' alerted the police.
He was charged with violating the German constitution, which expressly forbids public displays of Nazis and all their works...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/7863086/German-faces-jail-for-Adolf-Hitler-mobile-phone-ring-tone.html
Snestorm
07-12-10, 04:42 PM
We'll take a peace of it, as it's very wide.
Should the government be replaced through democratic means, it means that the government failed the people.
The worse the government pushes people, the more drammatic the solution those people will accept. "It ain't good, but it's better than what we've got now".
Should this happen, the people to be held responsable, are those running your present government. Tyranny begets tyranny.
Skybird
07-12-10, 04:51 PM
This still does not answer my question. you only say that if people fall for propaganda calling for a Nazi tyranny, it is the losing governments fault - which is a bit too simplistic, for my taste.
You want unlimited free speech. Let's say you get it, the government thus does not fail you, but gives you what you wanted, or better: it does not take freee speech away from you. you are free, then, to use free speech for propagating a new Nazi tyranny, and propagating the banning of free speech. Because the government you doom so easily leaves you that freedom to want that and to speak out for that. The government is not to blame - if anyone is to blame, then you are the one to be blamed.
If free speech gets used to propagate the destruction of free speech, the destruction of the democratic and constitutional order, and installing a new Nazi tyranny like the one we already have had - would that be okay for you? would you accept the outcome? If you do, what would you tell your grandfather's generation for having fought against what you now accept and tolerate?
You evade. A simple answer would be enough. The question is quite easy. do you accept free speech going so far as to reestablish tyrannies of the bast? Do nyou accepot free speech going so far that it demands the desctruction of free speech? Do you accept free speech to be used to topple the constitutonal, democratic, relatovely free state order of the nation in which you reside and that guarantees you a greater ammount of your precious free speech tahn people ever have had in the history of mankind?
Either you do, or you don't.
Snestorm
07-12-10, 05:17 PM
Free speech has already been killed.
One can not kill that which is already dead.
Free speech can not be tolerated because it may kill free speech?!?!
Sounds like something out of "1984".
If free speech, free thinking, and the democratic process leads to the replacement of your government, so be it.
What that government is replaced with is entirely up to you and your fellow citizens.
Bring back The Kaiser if you like, but remmember to keep it within your own borders.
Nazism did not get Germany into trouble with the rest of the world.
Expansionism did!
Free speech has already been killed....
......If free speech, free thinking, and the democratic process leads to the replacement of your government, so be it
I don't normally agree with Skybird but he brings up a valid point. At what point, if any, should a society no longer tolerate an enemy using it's own laws and freedoms to destroy it?
thorn69
07-12-10, 06:23 PM
While here in the US, C-SPAN airs hate speech on public television - but only one sided hate speech. It's not like C-SPAN would ever give the KKK any air time to spread their version of hate! Can't we have EQUALITY when it comes to hate! :haha:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMOkDOXAovQ
And this jerk off in the next video thinks that just because the jerk off in the first video was a former college professor that his hate speech should hold some form of merit! Yeah, like no college professor, former or otherwise, has ever done anything wrong! :rotfl2:
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/amy-bishop-150x150.jpg
Amy Bishop
College Professor AND Murderer!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISN1RCxko2Q&feature=related
Hmmm? :hmmm: Could C-SPAN be attempting to start a race war in America?
Platapus
07-12-10, 06:24 PM
I don'T agree often with August, but as I said: where he is right, he's right.
I don't normally agree with Skybird but he brings up a valid point.
Holy crap! So that's what caused the solar ellipse on 11 July 2010.
I was wondering.....:hmmm:
Hey, guys, next time warn us OK? :o
:D
thorn69
07-12-10, 06:33 PM
At least some folks are still sane and see the double-standards!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGv8PQr8Uo4&feature=related
Snestorm
07-12-10, 06:34 PM
I don't normally agree with Skybird but he brings up a valid point. At what point, if any, should a society no longer tolerate an enemy using it's own laws and freedoms to destroy it?
Or, conversely, at what point should a society no longer tolerate a government using laws to destroy that very society?
Who wants their countries' doors held open for this crap to continue pouring in?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocU5x_03MDM
People have it, and will turn to anything to correct what their corrupt governments have done, and continue to do, to their countries.
Danmark has taken steps against mass immigration and does not have a large rise in nazism (And, Freedom Of Speech is alive and well). The governments of some of our neighbors continue to encourage multiculturalism and mass immigration, and guess what old ideoligy is making a big comeback?
All the politicians need to do to see the cause of the problem, is look at their own corrupt faces in the mirror. Fix the cause of the problem, and the adverse reaction to that problem will melt away.
Holy crap! So that's what caused the solar ellipse on 11 July 2010.
I was wondering.....:hmmm:
Hey, guys, next time warn us OK? :o
:D I think :hmmm:
krashkart
07-12-10, 07:02 PM
Who wants their countries' doors held open for this crap to continue pouring in?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocU5x_03MDM
Waow. "Jihad Against European Crusaders" (0:35 into the video).... I thought the Crusades had ended centuries ago. :hmmm:
Note to self: If I ever have kids, make sure they understand history... :|\\
EDIT - Forgive my ignorance. It's hard to imagine that kind of public display as we don't have it here. The more I see of it on the webs though the more I begin to wonder if we should be ready for it to rear its ugly head here.
Skybird
07-12-10, 07:12 PM
Or, conversely, at what point should a society no longer tolerate a government using laws to destroy that very society?
Who wants their countries' doors held open for this crap to continue pouring in?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocU5x_03MDM
People have it, and will turn to anything to correct what their corrupt governments have done, and continue to do, to their countries.
Danmark has taken steps against mass immigration and does not have a large rise in nazism (And, Freedom Of Speech is alive and well). The governments of some of our neighbors continue to encourage multiculturalism and mass immigration, and guess what old ideoligy is making a big comeback?
All the politicians need to do to see the cause of the problem, is look at their own corrupt faces in the mirror. Fix the cause of the problem, and the adverse reaction to that problem will melt away.
Enough eggdancing now. I must take from your manouverings that you think it is okay when free speech gets abused to destroy just that free speech. By that you certainly cannot be against anything anymore, not sharia, not Nazism, no racism, no destroying of the constitutional order, democracy and free thiught - if free speech gets destroyed because in free speech it was campaigned for destroiying free speech, you agree.
Note that form and quality of government that you constantly tried to evade to, had and has nothign to do with this orinciple dilemma. You remind me of Lance there, when he asked baout his paper two weeks ago, and got feedback that he missed the topic becasue he was to fixiated on things that were on his mind - but the question of the prof did not had asked for.
It is a very self-destructive understanding that you have of freedom in general - it lacks the concept that every lifeform on this planet calls a part of it's design: self-preservation. Without that, every structure sooner or later must destroy itself, or must get destroyed from the outside. Since you refuse to set limits for the abuse of free speech, you must accept any speech and the inention behind it. That leads to you necessarily tolerating everything there is - even that which tries to destroy you. Becasue if you would raise criterions that decide where your tolerance finds a limit, that would mean that you also define your own identity, shaped and created by just that: limits, borderlines of yourself.
Unlimited freedom that even accepts the other using his unlimited freedom to destroy oneself, jst for the sake of not needing to limit his freedoms, simply is a total self-denial, a rejection of anything one could claim as one's own identity. and such a structure, may it be a state or a culture/civilisation, or a persnality structure that knows no own borders/limits, must collapse sooner or later. Because it refuses to stabilise itself to the needed sufficient degree. In pychology, this is part of several forms of major psychosis and self-destructive tendencies like self-mutilation, masochism, and suicide. The porblem is always a variation of the same basic issue: if a persoan or a nation or a culture cannot differ between wehre it ends and the othe rbegins, "me" and "them", and cannot or does not want to say what it is and wants to be, and what it is not and does not want to be, then such a personality, such a nation or culture - is dissolving the borders between "me" and "them" - and then dissolves itself in the outside environment.
That is not "unlimited freedom" then, but that is "end of own existence".
"Der Frosch ist nicht Frosch, weil er ein Frosch ist - sondern weil er nichts anderes ist."
thorn69
07-12-10, 07:29 PM
Enough eggdancing now. I must take from your manouverings that you think it is okay when free speech gets abused to destroy just that free speech. By that you certainly cannot be against anything anymore, not sharia, not Nazism, no racism, no destroying of the constitutional order, democracy and free thiught - if free speech gets destroyed because in free speech it was campaigned for destroiying free speech, you agree.
Note that form and quality of government that you constantly tried to evade to, had and has nothign to do with this orinciple dilemma. You remind me of Lance there, when he asked baout his paper two weeks ago, and got feedback that he missed the topic becasue he was to fixiated on things that were on his mind - but the question of the prof did not had asked for.
It is a very self-destructive understanding that you have of freedom in general - it lacks the concept that every lifeform on this planet calls a part of it's design: self-preservation. Without that, every structure sooner or later must destroy itself, or must get destroyed from the outside. Since you refuse to set limits for the abuse of free speech, you must accept any speech and the inention behind it. That leads to you necessarily tolerating everything there is - even that which tries to destroy you. Becasue if you would raise criterions that decide where your tolerance finds a limit, that would mean that you also define your own identity, shaped and created by just that: limits, borderlines of yourself.
Unlimited freedom that even accepts the other using his unlimited freedom to destroy oneself, jst for the sake of not needing to limit his freedoms, simply is a total self-denial, a rejection of anything one could claim as one's own identity. and such a structure, may it be a state or a culture/civilisation, or a persnality structure that knows no own borders/limits, must collapse sooner or later. Because it refuses to stabilise itself to the needed sufficient degree. In pychology, this is part of several forms of major psychosis and self-destructive tendencies like self-mutilation, masochism, and suicide. The porblem is always a variation of the same basic issue: if a persoan or a nation or a culture cannot differ between wehre it ends and the othe rbegins, "me" and "them", and cannot or does not want to say what it is and wants to be, and what it is not and does not want to be, then such a personality, such a nation or culture - is dissolving the borders between "me" and "them" - and then dissolves itself in the outside environment.
That is not "unlimited freedom" then, but that is "end of own existence".
"Der Frosch ist nicht Frosch, weil er ein Frosch ist - sondern weil er nichts anderes ist."
This is not just happening in Germany Skybird. This is happening in just about every democracy where people consistently attempt to mock and test the system to see what they can and can not get away. When they can get away with something they get more ambitious and move onto more and more taboo ideas to test against the system. They want the government to tell them "No", because this gives them a challenge and a way to sue for money and power.
Just look at how much things have changed in America in such a short period of time. Do you think homosexuality would have ever been excepted during Washington's time period? I think not. What about abortions? Nope not that either. Blacks challenged the system, then women, then gays, and on and on and on. Eventually it's going to be allowed for people to indulge in bestiality and other taboo ideas because the system just can't say "No". Why can't it say, "No"? Simple, because if you say "No" to my cause then I will compare it to other causes that you have accepted. Germany is saying "No" to any form of Nazism. While that's noble and the right thing to do, there are going to be activists that will consistently challenge the law until they eventually get their way.
You see, it will never stop. The system is designed to allow people to "freely" destroy it because "freedom" knows no bounds. And like I've said before in another post. Absolute "freedom" will lead to the world's destruction. Why? Because somebody will eventually argue that it's their right to destroy the world. If you tell them "No" they will do it anyways because who's going to stop them when nobody exists?
Platapus
07-12-10, 07:53 PM
This reminds me of the argument on whether it is right to be intolerant of intolerance? :know:
http://blogs.citypages.com/gop/FreeSpeechZone.jpg
Snestorm
07-12-10, 10:18 PM
@Skybird
Your question was answered, without eggdancing, in post #105.
Direct answer in paragraph #1.
Comments on your absurd line of questioning in paragraph #2.
Skybird
07-13-10, 03:38 AM
This reminds me of the argument on whether it is right to be intolerant of intolerance? :know:
Maybe these two guys can help you to come to a conclusion.
The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato.
Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.
In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.
Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil.
One couldn't put it much shorter or any better.
Skybird
07-13-10, 03:56 AM
and while I was looking up the exact English text of the tolerance paradox, I stumbled over these nice quotes by Popper as well:
Although I consider our political world to be the best of which we have any historical knowledge, we should beware of attributing this fact to democracy or to freedom. Freedom is not a supplier who delivers goods to our door. Democracy does not ensure that anything is accomplished — certainly not an economic miracle. It is wrong and dangerous to extol freedom by telling people that they will certainly be all right once they are free. How someone fares in life is largely a matter of luck or grace, and to a comparatively small degree perhaps also of competence, diligence, and other virtues. The most we can say of democracy or freedom is that they give our personal abilities a little more influence on our well-being.
It is wrong to think that belief in freedom always leads to victory; we must always be prepared for it to lead to defeat. If we choose freedom, then we must be prepared to perish along with it. Poland fought for freedom as no other country did. The Czech nation was prepared to fight for its freedom in 1938; it was not lack of courage that sealed its fate. The Hungarian Revolution of 1956 — the work of young people with nothing to lose but their chains — triumphed and then ended in failure. ... Democracy and freedom do not guarantee the millennium. No, we do not choose political freedom because it promises us this or that. We choose it because it makes possible the only dignified form of human coexistence, the only form in which we can be fully responsible for ourselves. Whether we realize its possibilities depends on all kinds of things — and above all on ourselves.
While here in the US, C-SPAN airs hate speech on public television - but only one sided hate speech. It's not like C-SPAN would ever give the KKK any air time to spread their version of hate! Can't we have EQUALITY when it comes to hate! :haha:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMOkDOXAovQ
And this jerk off in the next video thinks that just because the jerk off in the first video was a former college professor that his hate speech should hold some form of merit! Yeah, like no college professor, former or otherwise, has ever done anything wrong! :rotfl2:
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/amy-bishop-150x150.jpg
Amy Bishop
College Professor AND Murderer!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISN1RCxko2Q&feature=related
Hmmm? :hmmm: Could C-SPAN be attempting to start a race war in America?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGv8PQr8Uo4
This is not just happening in Germany Skybird. This is happening in just about every democracy where people consistently attempt to mock and test the system to see what they can and can not get away. When they can get away with something they get more ambitious and move onto more and more taboo ideas to test against the system. They want the government to tell them "No", because this gives them a challenge and a way to sue for money and power.
Just look at how much things have changed in America in such a short period of time. Do you think homosexuality would have ever been excepted during Washington's time period? I think not. What about abortions? Nope not that either. Blacks challenged the system, then women, then gays, and on and on and on. Eventually it's going to be allowed for people to indulge in bestiality and other taboo ideas because the system just can't say "No". Why can't it say, "No"? Simple, because if you say "No" to my cause then I will compare it to other causes that you have accepted. Germany is saying "No" to any form of Nazism. While that's noble and the right thing to do, there are going to be activists that will consistently challenge the law until they eventually get their way.
You see, it will never stop. The system is designed to allow people to "freely" destroy it because "freedom" knows no bounds. And like I've said before in another post. Absolute "freedom" will lead to the world's destruction. Why? Because somebody will eventually argue that it's their right to destroy the world. If you tell them "No" they will do it anyways because who's going to stop them when nobody exists?
http://www.france24.com/en/20100225-zombies-have-free-speech-rights-us-court-rules
thorn69
07-13-10, 05:20 PM
http://www.france24.com/en/20100225-zombies-have-free-speech-rights-us-court-rules
http://i34.tinypic.com/2vae5fr.jpg
Skybird
07-14-10, 04:11 PM
Since some people make any limiting of "free speech" such an issue here when it is about pouring out supremacist hate propaganda in Germany having the potential to relativise the crimes of the Nazi era and to raise new such troubles, let'S look at america - where the federal appeal court in NY has just sacked a law that prohibited not hate speech of this kind - but simple cursing on TV, even a single word that by modern standards is considered pretty much as maybe vulgar but still contemporary speech:
http://www.welt.de/fernsehen/article8467609/In-den-USA-darf-im-Fernsehen-wieder-geflucht-werden.html
The "puritan" media control FCC had released rules against unwanted words on TV, these rules go back to the 70s, and congress raised the penalties to over 300,000 dollars for using for example the F-word.
This was just the first English source I found to verify the German article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/13/fcc-swear-word-censorship_n_644837.html
Snestorm
07-14-10, 06:33 PM
Since some people make any limiting of "free speech" such an issue here when it is about pouring out supremacist hate propaganda in Germany having the potential to relativise the crimes of the Nazi era and to raise new such troubles, let'S look at america - where the federal appeal court in NY has just sacked a law that prohibited not hate speech of this kind - but simple cursing on TV, even a single word that by modern standards is considered pretty much as maybe vulgar but still contemporary speech:
http://www.welt.de/fernsehen/article8467609/In-den-USA-darf-im-Fernsehen-wieder-geflucht-werden.html
The "puritan" media control FCC had released rules against unwanted words on TV, these rules go back to the 70s, and congress raised the penalties to over 300,000 dollars for using for example the F-word.
This was just the first English source I found to verify the German article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/13/fcc-swear-word-censorship_n_644837.html
And the court just threw the FCC's rules into the trash can.
Free Speech: 1
Puritan Controls: 0
Skybird
07-14-10, 06:35 PM
And the court just threw the FCC's rules into the trash can.
Free Speech: 1
Puritan Controls: 0
Yes, what I said. but for decades you allowed these rules to be there, to be put into place via a campaigning and lobbying religious camp, and violations sanctioned with hilariously high penalties.
What took you so long?
Meanwhile, limitations also of media's abilities to report freely about the government'S actions have been enforced by the Patriot Act.
The Third Man
07-14-10, 06:45 PM
The more you close your hand the more they slip out of your grasp.
Snestorm
07-14-10, 06:55 PM
Yes, what I said. but for decades you allowed these rules to be there, to be put into place via a campaigning and lobbying religious camp, and violations sanctioned with hilariously high penalties.
What took you so long?
Meanwhile, limitations also of media's abilities to report freely about the government'S actions have been enforced by the Patriot Act.
What took ME so long?
I don't have a vote there.
So far I haven't read anything patriotic about The "Patriot" ACT.
Perhaps this is something we can agree on?
Skybird
07-14-10, 07:18 PM
What took ME so long?
No, I meant: "you, america". The laws in question were basing on decisions in the early or mid 70s, I read. That means it took roughly four times as long to neutralise a law against curses on TV (sanctioned with draconic penalties), than it took to get rid of Hitler's tyranny from his taking power to the end of WWII.
I just can't get the different standards together here, and why a simple quick curse is so much more offensive than preaching a destructive, inhumane ideology that can (and has) shattered nations and continents - which is defended as "free speech".
However.
The Third Man
07-14-10, 07:28 PM
So he displayed some image of Hitler. May have even said something which protrayed Adolf Hitler in a positive light.
Only Germany considers this a crime. In the US it would be considered free speach as guaranteed against governmet intervention by our Bill of Rights.
The more you close your hand the more they slip out of your grasp. about "your grasp? :hmmm:
AndreasMeyer
02-27-13, 12:27 PM
Its nothing to do with free speech, the laws that cover such Nazi stuff are under the section dealing with things like treason.
The particular subsection which covers this if intent is shown is the protection of democracy bit.
Just because they got legislation to suppress politically incorrect opinions, doesn't mean that it is not about Free Speech.
There is no Free Speech in Germany. And the state does pro-actively persecute dissidents of a nationalistic or revisionistic kind.
Do they prosecute thread necromancers?
Sailor Steve
02-27-13, 12:50 PM
Do you always jump into arguments that ended almost three years ago?
Catfish
02-27-13, 12:55 PM
Hitler's car scene in 'Rat race'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dsgQb3jkk4
:rotfl2:
Sailor Steve
02-27-13, 12:57 PM
Nothing wrong in that.
Arguing with something someone said years earlier? Not wrong, but more than a little silly.
Not wrong, but more than a little silly.
As is majority of the stuff found in GT.
Give the guy a break. He's new and probably not used to noting such details.
TBH I just get red lights flashing when it's obvious that he will have had to have searched deliberately for this topic, and then making the sort of reply that states that there is a conspiracy against German nationalists and revisionists. Well, it makes the person seem like he might be a German nationalist or revisionist, or looking to provoke emotion by stating such.
Tribesman
02-27-13, 03:14 PM
And the state does pro-actively persecute dissidents of a nationalistic or revisionistic kind.
Nationalist revisionist dissidents, in usual terms thats neo nazi holocaust deniers isn't it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K08akOt2kuo
gemelis800
02-27-13, 03:40 PM
I thought this site was for Submarines I got ticked off for saying the S word this is to heavy.
Skybird
02-27-13, 06:01 PM
TBH I just get red lights flashing when it's obvious that he will have had to have searched deliberately for this topic, and then making the sort of reply that states that there is a conspiracy against German nationalists and revisionists. Well, it makes the person seem like he might be a German nationalist or revisionist, or looking to provoke emotion by stating such.
My thoughts exactly.
My thoughts exactly.
You fellows might be right. Still, give him the rope he needs to hang himself first.
Sailor Steve
02-27-13, 07:15 PM
I'm sorry. I just always find it entertaining when someone brings up an old thread, not to find out more about the subject, but to argue with something someone said long ago. At least Tribesman is still around. Half the time it's someone who hasn't even been here in years.
I'm sorry. I just always find it entertaining when someone brings up an old thread, not to find out more about the subject, but to argue with something someone said long ago. At least Tribesman is still around. Half the time it's someone who hasn't even been here in years.
At least it's better than just "I agree" or "Yes" :03:
At least it's better than just "I agree" or "Yes" :03:
+1
(sorry couldn't resist)
Sailor Steve
02-27-13, 09:22 PM
+1
(sorry couldn't resist)
Why? He's right, and so are you. I also apologize if my opinion is wrong. It often is.
Why? He's right, and so are you. I also apologize if my opinion is wrong. It often is.
I was just teasing Oberon a bit so quit apologizing. :timeout:
"I agree" is just a long winded version of "+1" get it? :)
Madox58
02-27-13, 10:37 PM
I just noticed how many 'keelhauled' images are in this thread.
:haha:
Red October1984
02-27-13, 11:09 PM
These are my personal thoughts. I don't usually post a whole lot of these. Sorry for any offense I may bring with this post. Okay?
I read the title and first post of this thread and laughed. A German...arrested by Germans for broadcasting a German man's speeches.
I know that Hitler was bad and did unspeakable things but I have a sick sense of humor sometimes. It's just the way I am....I have a very broad sense of humor and some Dark Humor is included...I know there isn't a place for it on an international internet forum...but sometimes it comes out and again I apologize for finding some Hitler-related things funny.
Buddahaid
02-27-13, 11:37 PM
I just noticed how many 'keelhauled' images are in this thread.
:haha:
All the same guy. It was fun reading this and trying the many dead links, and interesting to see if your own opinion has been modified.
Takeda Shingen
02-27-13, 11:38 PM
All the same guy. It was fun reading this and trying the many dead links, and interesting to see if your own opinion has modified.
If it makes you feel any less nostalgic, he will almost certainly be back someday when he gets a new ISP. The Third Man was his fifth account.
Madox58
02-27-13, 11:40 PM
Ya. I suspect 'Owner'.
:har:
Buddahaid
02-27-13, 11:41 PM
If it makes you feel any less nostalgic, he will almost certainly be back someday when he gets a new ISP. The Third Man was his fifth account.
It's nice to be missed. :sunny:
Hmmm, that didn't come out right......
Sailor Steve
02-27-13, 11:46 PM
I was just teasing Oberon a bit so quit apologizing. :timeout:
I was apolgizing to Dowly, not to you.
"I agree" is just a long winded version of "+1" get it? :)
Yes, I do. My comment to you was aimed at "Sorry, couldn't resist", saying that you had no need to apologize.
Sorry if I expressed myself poorly. :O:
If it makes you feel any less nostalgic, he will almost certainly be back someday when he gets a new ISP. The Third Man was his fifth account.
I'd be curious to see the whole list.
Takeda Shingen
02-27-13, 11:57 PM
I'd be curious to see the whole list.
I went back through, and it looks like that was only number 4, not 5. In fairness, it was almost 3 years ago now.
waste gate
spooka2
Castle Bravo
The Third Man
I would list Owner's, but that would be more than 30 handles. There was that zombies thread up in the SH5 forum where he was coming back with new account after new account, and of course there was the whole anti-semitism thing from a couple of weeks ago.
Madox58
02-28-13, 12:00 AM
So what happened to the Guy with the Cell phone anyway?
They whack his pee pee or what?
:D
I went back through, and it looks like that was only number 4, not 5. In fairness, it was almost 3 years ago now.
waste gate
spooka2
Castle Bravo
The Third Man
I would list Owner's, but that would be more than 30 handles. There was that zombies thread up in the SH5 forum where he was coming back with new account after new account, and of course there was the whole anti-semitism thing from a couple of weeks ago.
Thanks
So what happened to the Guy with the Cell phone anyway?
They whack his pee pee or what?
:D Six months in jail and fines.
gemelis800
03-01-13, 12:27 PM
Any fool can ask a question which the wise,est man can not answer.
Mr Bean 2012
Herr-Berbunch
03-01-13, 12:43 PM
Any fool can ask a question which the wise,est man can not answer.
Mr Bean 2012
Are you confusing this thread for the 'favourite quotes' thread? :hmmm:
Jimbuna
03-01-13, 01:51 PM
Ah, Owner...now there's a blast from the past :hmm2:
Any fool can ask a question which the wise,est man can not answer.
Mr Bean 2012
"If God is all powerful can he make a rock so big he can't lift it?"
- George Carlin
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.