Banned Symbols?

[waste gate]

I'd like to start a thread as to why some symbols are banned and some are not.
An example in my country would be cross burning. Which represents the Ku Klux Klan and its white supremecy associations. The burning of the flag of the US is not banned, but protected by the first amendment.

Both are burning symbols and reflect a political statement, yet one is illegal and the other isn't. Why?

What other examples are there in the world? The swastika is an obvious one. Muhamed with a bomb in his turbin comes to mind.

Ultimately my question is..........does the banning or making a symbol illegal actually make us more tolerant of other peoples opinion, or does it just drive the 'hate' more underground and cause more trouble and decension?

What is your opinion. Is political correctness driving us apart?

Clear and present danger doesn't apply.

[MothBalls]

Burn flag burners.

http://www.patriotsherald.com/images/flagpriceless.jpg

[waste gate]

OK. I was asking for opinions not pictures. I deliberatly didn't post pix because of their inflamatory (pardon the pun) nature. I am, however, happy to hear your opinion.

[waste gate]

Article 5 of Germany's constitution, or Basic Law, enshrines the right of freedom of speech and of the press.

"Everyone has the right to freely express and disseminate their opinions orally, in writing or visually and to obtain information from generally accessible sources without hindrance," states paragraph one of the law. "Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting through audiovisual media shall be guaranteed. There shall be no censorship."


But the next paragraph puts certain limits on that freedom, which were deemed necessary when the Basic Law was proclaimed in 1949, just four years after the end of World War II and the downfall of the Nazi dictatorship.

"These rights are subject to limitations embodied in the provisions of general legislation, statutory provisions for the protection of young persons and the citizen's right to personal respect," reads the second paragraph.

German law therefore constrains freedom, said Udo Branahl, a professor of media law at the University of Dortmund.

[Sailor Steve]

Burn flag burners.
Completely disagree. Americans consider the flag to be the symbol of our freedom. If we remove the freedom in order to protect the symbol, what have we accomplished?

[Gizzmoe]

Article 5 of Germany's constitution, or Basic Law, enshrines the right of freedom of speech and of the press.

[...]

But the next paragraph puts certain limits on that freedom

[...]

German law therefore constrains freedom

You think that´s any different in the US or most other countries?

[waste gate]

Article 5 of Germany's constitution, or Basic Law, enshrines the right of freedom of speech and of the press.

[...]

But the next paragraph puts certain limits on that freedom

[...]

German law therefore constrains freedom

You think that´s any different in the US or most other countries?

You're off topic. Let me rephrase the debate.

Ultimately my question is..........does the banning or making a symbol illegal actually make us more tolerant of other peoples opinion, or does it just drive the 'hate' more underground and cause more trouble and decension?

What is your opinion. Is political correctness driving us apart?

[Skybird]

I don't get the different aspects of your question together. what has tolerance or intolerance to do with banning a Nazi symbol? the important question only is: how far must tolerance go before it turns into anarchy and lack of a defining standard for what is to be tolerated, and what not? and does tolerance include to allow it going that far that it effecti aly kills itself that way? Is total tolerance even thinkable?

[waste gate]

I don't get the different aspects of your question together. what has tolerance or intolerance to do with banning a Nazi symbol? the important question only is: how far must tolerance go before it turns into anarchy and lack of a defining standard for what is to be tolerated, and what not? and does tolerance include to allow it going that far that it effecti aly kills itself that way? Is total tolerance even thinkable?

Skybird,

The swastika was only an example. Burning crosses was also an example. I'm not necessarily saying that tolerance is the key element in the banishment of either example. My question remains;

does the banning or making a symbol illegal actually make us more tolerant of other peoples opinion, or does it just drive the 'hate' more underground and cause more trouble and decension?

[SkvyWvr]

does the banning or making a symbol illegal actually make us more tolerant of other peoples opinion, or does it just drive the 'hate' more underground and cause more trouble and decension?

I believe it drives the hate more underground. I also believe ppl who determin symbols to be illegal have too much time on their hands and should deal with the issues they were elected to deal with. It's like the "Stars and Bars" of the US south during the civil war. Several states include it as part of their state flags then along comes some group moaning that it's a symbol of racism when in fact the civil war wasn't about slavery when the initial shots were fired, but about states rights. Those that died under that flag were as American as those that died under the Stars and Stripes.

[Dowly]

Sure it drives the movements with banned symbols underground. And surely it angers them, they believe in their thing and by banning their 'holy symbol' it only gives them one reason more to keep up the hate against the ones that banned it. Some movements just speak out about it, some take violence to back them up to get what they want.

To answer your question: Yes, IMO it divides FEW people out of the whole, but the numbers are against the few. It wont have any effect if 1000 neo-nazis protest to get their symbols out of the banned list nor do it have any effect if they go and beat the sh*t out of someone.