Swastikas and Germany in the modern day...

[areo16]

I'd like to open a thread about Germany in the modern day and its policy about the Swastika. I'm from the US, and I'm trying to understand Germany's freedom of speech views and laws in the modern day. But especially its outlaw of Swastikas.

Of course, we all know the Swastikas history, but I'd like to hear from Germans and what they think of the law?

To put it on a level understanding I can say this: In the US, we have a strong slavery history. To compare the Holocaust with our slavery history isn't what I'm after here. One could argue that to demote someone to a piece of property, with the emotional and painful hardships that a slave would go through may even be as bad or worse than being gassed in a concentration camp.

But, most of American history is draped with slavery. However, I wouldn't think that an outlaw of the CSA (Confederate) flag would be justified. Of course our freedom of speech rights are very unique and deeply embedded in our constitution. I think history is something we should be proud of, and we can look at the good things in our past. Today, when I think of the CSA I like to think of their fighting will power against astounding odds. I also like how they challenged the Federal government and voiced their opinions, and revolted (acts Thomas Jefferson had promoted during the Revolution that would cleanse a government periodically). I thought they exercised their freedom to disagree with the government, and even bearing arms against a government they saw as unjust, just like the Continental Congress did years before.

How do Germans feel? Do you feel the same as I?

I personally feel that Germans should embrace their past. Even their Nazi past. Their military feats were astounding and it would be something I'd be proud of, other things aside. I know time will help heal wounds. But is outlawing the Swastika really sending the right message? It seems almost ironic. Didn't the Nazi government outlaw political symbols or flags that they disagreed with? I'd also think that outlawing the symbol would be disgracing the men who fought for the ideology and died for it. Not all Nazis knew of the Holocaust or were "evil". I'd feel upset if the government outlawed the CSA flag, knowing that many Americans bled for that flag.

I'd also be a bit frustrated if I couldn't play video games with Swastikas in them, because I enjoy playing historical games. Not allowing a Swastika in a game or a movie would really ruin the atmosphere for me. Because they often use other symbols, that didn't even exist. I wouldn't care for it much. I'm a history junkie though...

Anyhow, food for thought...

[areo16]

I suppose we can look at the reasons why the Swastika would be outlawed to better understand why it is outlawed in Germany.
To appease those who hated what was done in the name of the Swastika (understandable).

To perhaps prevent another Nazi revolution (although considering how much the world knows the atrocities that occurred with Nazism, I don't think the world would ever let that happen again even slightly).

I can't think of any others. Help?

[Schroeder]

I don't miss the Swastika one bit. If you get a little deeper into what happened during the Nazi time it's in my opinion right to not let some modern idiots walk around with a Nazi flag which would be mocking all the people who suffered under the Swastika (the crimes even outside the Holocaust are mind blowing).

Freedom of speech is important but if this freedom is used to propagate terror and crime of that scale then it's IMHO ok to ban it for that subject. I'm aware that this is a very fine line that borders censorship but for the overall situation here I think it's acceptable in that case.

[areo16]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

I don't miss the Swastika one bit. If you get a little deeper into what happened during the Nazi time it's in my opinion right to not let some modern idiots walk around with a Nazi flag which would be mocking all the people who suffered under the Swastika (the crimes even outside the Holocaust are mind blowing).

Freedom of speech is important but if this freedom is used to propagate terror and crime of that scale then it's IMHO ok to ban it for that subject. I'm aware that this is a very fine line that borders censorship but for the overall situation here I think it's acceptable in that case.

It seems you live in Germany. So, you are in favor of a limited freedom of speech. Which wouldn't be freedom of speech, because it is controls in some shape or form. It would be "limited freedom of speech", which isn't "freedom of speech" in the general sense of the words. It seems you feel freedom of speech should take the bench to the propagation of terror.

In most places propogation of terror is illegal anyhow. This could be considered a threat, which is a crime here in the states. So why limit the freedom of speech if the propagation of terror and the acts the Nazis did are illegal anyhow? What about the display of the swastika for educational purposes, or peaceful purposes? I realize this might be hard to grasps considering that the incidents occurred just 60 years ago. But you do think that Freedom of speech does have its limits.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by areo16

It seems you live in Germany. So, you are in favor of a limited freedom of speech. Which wouldn't be freedom of speech, because it is controls in some shape or form. It would be "limited freedom of speech", which isn't "freedom of speech" in the general sense of the words. It seems you feel freedom of speech should take the bench to the propagation of terror.

In most places propogation of terror is illegal anyhow. This could be considered a threat, which is a crime here in the states. So why limit the freedom of speech if the propagation of terror and the acts the Nazis did are illegal anyhow? What about the display of the swastika for educational purposes, or peaceful purposes? I realize this might be hard to grasps considering that the incidents occurred just 60 years ago. But you do think that Freedom of speech does have its limits.

Freedom of speech knows pragmatic limits, and quite fundamental ones, even in the US. Beside ideological content and transportation of questionable content, one has to understand that freedom of speech is not "per se", but depends on situation (space) and time context. Because: nobody is free to say what he wants anywhere, at any time, to anybody even if that anybody does not want to listen and does not want to be bothered. What you are free to do is not to always, at any occasion, voice your opinion, but to work for a context or secure a situation where you have the right to do so indeed, and that means: if you want to hold a public speech, you lease time in a hall or a studio, or you build on your property an assembly house. Or you write a book or found a newspaper to express your views. In other words: freedom of speech is something that can be practices if you "possess the circumstance", and are the owner of the time and space where you do so. You have no freedom to just bother anyone, anywhere, because that would be a violation of their freedom - namely the freedom to not needing to care for you and not being bothered by you.

Such general, abstract rights are suprisingly vague and meaningless, if you do not understand that they hint at their nature of being property rights. It's the same with human rights, all of which only make sense and are not just abstract philosophical babbling when you incarnate them in solid material terms and conditions that again manifestate anything you link to the term human rights, to property rights, starting with the right for humans to own their own body.

This is often misunderstood or better: is notoriously ignored. And the result is an endless abstract, vague, pathetic babbling that in its corer and center has no substantial point.

You are free to speak your mind only under some circumstances, and occaisonas, in some places. Their is no general right for "free speech "anywhere always".

In this forum, Neal makes the rules, and if he says this and that topic is no go from now on, then this is perfectly okay, because he is the owner of this place. He is free to make it a very "liberal" (in the meaning of free, tolerant) place indeed and allow many things that in other forums are banned from discussion for sure, and he is free to define what goes and what not. But that is his free decision and right, he is not obligated to allow just anything, from anyone. If he would run a tighter policy, this in no way would serve as an excuse to claim that he in general is an obstacle to free speech. He only would practice a property right, which in this case is the right of the house owner.

My place, my rules. Freedom of speech finds its limits where it collides with the property rights of others. And that is becasue freedom of speech is a property right itself, has property rights (space, time) as a precondition.

[areo16]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Freedom of speech knows pragmatic limits, and quite fundamental ones, even in the US. Beside ideological content and transportation of questionable content, one has to understand that freedom of speech is not "per se", but depends on situation (space) and time context. Because: nobody is free to say what he wants anywhere, at any time, to anybody even if that anybody does not want to listen and does not want to be bothered. What you are free to do is not to always, at any occasion, voice your opinion, but to work for a context or secure a situation where you have the right to do so indeed, and that means: if you want to hold a public speech, you lease time in a hall or a studio, or you build on your property an assembly house. Or you write a book or found a newspaper to express your views. In other words: freedom of speech is something that can be practices if you "possess the circumstance", and are the owner of the time and space where you do so. You have no freedom to just bother anyone, anywhere, because that would be a violation of their freedom - namely the freedom to not needing to care for you and not being bothered by you.

Such general, abstract rights are suprisingly vague and meaningless, if you do not understand that they hint at their nature of being property rights. It's the same with human rights, all of which only make sense and are not just abstract philosophical babbling when you incarnate them in solid material terms and conditions that again manifestate anything you link to the term human rights, to property rights, starting with the right for humans to own their own body.

This is often misunderstood or better: is notoriously ignored. And the result is an endless abstract, vague, pathetic babbling that in its corer and center has no substantial point.

You are free to speak your mind only under some circumstances, and occaisonas, in some places. Their is no general right for "free speech "anywhere always".

In this forum, Neal makes the rules, and if he says this and that topic is no go from now on, then this is perfectly okay, because he is the owner of this place. He is free to make it a very "liberal" (in the meaning of free, tolerant) place indeed and allow many things that in other forums are banned from discussion for sure, and he is free to define what goes and what not. But that is his free decision and right, he is not obligated to allow just anything, from anyone. If he would run a tighter policy, this in no way would serve as an excuse to claim that he in general is an obstacle to free speech. He only would practice a property right, which in this case is the right of the house owner.

My place, my rules. Freedom of speech finds its limits where it collides with the property rights of others. And that is becasue freedom of speech is a property right itself, has property rights (space, time) as a precondition.

What you say is true. Free speech is limited by things such as proximity and time. However, my response was addressing a situation of free speech which seems to be a bit more strict than that practiced here in the states. The limitation of free speech and the level it is practiced that I am addressing is a war and crimes which were committed over 60 years ago. No such limitation exists in the US. No one is outlawed from preaching anything about WW2 here in the US, from my general knowledge. Not boasting that our system is better, its more of a boast that I was brainwashed to think that my system is ideal.

[Friscobay]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Freedom of speech knows pragmatic limits, and quite fundamental ones, even in the US. Beside ideological content and transportation of questionable content, one has to understand that freedom of speech is not "per se", but depends on situation (space) and time context. Because: nobody is free to say what he wants anywhere, at any time, to anybody even if that anybody does not want to listen and does not want to be bothered. What you are free to do is not to always, at any occasion, voice your opinion, but to work for a context or secure a situation where you have the right to do so indeed, and that means: if you want to hold a public speech, you lease time in a hall or a studio, or you build on your property an assembly house. Or you write a book or found a newspaper to express your views. In other words: freedom of speech is something that can be practices if you "possess the circumstance", and are the owner of the time and space where you do so. You have no freedom to just bother anyone, anywhere, because that would be a violation of their freedom - namely the freedom to not needing to care for you and not being bothered by you.

Such general, abstract rights are suprisingly vague and meaningless, if you do not understand that they hint at their nature of being property rights. It's the same with human rights, all of which only make sense and are not just abstract philosophical babbling when you incarnate them in solid material terms and conditions that again manifestate anything you link to the term human rights, to property rights, starting with the right for humans to own their own body.

This is often misunderstood or better: is notoriously ignored. And the result is an endless abstract, vague, pathetic babbling that in its corer and center has no substantial point.

You are free to speak your mind only under some circumstances, and occaisonas, in some places. Their is no general right for "free speech "anywhere always".

In this forum, Neal makes the rules, and if he says this and that topic is no go from now on, then this is perfectly okay, because he is the owner of this place. He is free to make it a very "liberal" (in the meaning of free, tolerant) place indeed and allow many things that in other forums are banned from discussion for sure, and he is free to define what goes and what not. But that is his free decision and right, he is not obligated to allow just anything, from anyone. If he would run a tighter policy, this in no way would serve as an excuse to claim that he in general is an obstacle to free speech. He only would practice a property right, which in this case is the right of the house owner.

My place, my rules. Freedom of speech finds its limits where it collides with the property rights of others. And that is becasue freedom of speech is a property right itself, has property rights (space, time) as a precondition.

This may be the rule in Germany.

It is not in the US.

Indeed, from Associate Justice OW Holmes famous ''fire in a crowded theater'' comment which was a portion of the nations landmark free speech decision in 1919s SCHENCK , the US divided speech into that which can offend, and that which represents, a ''clear and present danger''. What you speak of where Neals oversight of SUBSIM is concerned, is that of the individuals willful entry into an arena where a compact is agreed upon bearing upon activity that includes the regulation of speech, [ ''Terms of Service'' and other devices used to regulate speech by owner-operators ].

That is one thing, and represents an area where speech can be regulated.

However, within the wider world of public and even private association and discourse , individuals are not protected from ''speech which offends''. It does not enter either into realms of ''space'' or ''time''. Only , as in SCHENCK, of offensive speech, and that which threatens. Immediately threatens. For such reasons then, do we find that America remains the least regulated of all industrial nations in the use and advancement of free speech, and becomes the only one to codify it within its very first amendment, of the Bill of Rights. Here, ''bothering'' others, is a national pastime in this nation for whatever the socio-political reasons that trigger the start of the soapbox derbies and their attendant debates.

[Betonov]

The US civil war was an internal matter. Americans killing Americans due to a different idea of, bluntly putting it, level of centralization of the union. As brutal as a war can be, there was no other atrocities apart from the usual ''breaches of the Geneva convention*'' we see even today. And in times when the global media was an occasional telegram from over the seas.

Nazism was an international matter. A madman followed by madmen invading other countries in a notion that some races are superior resulting in the destruction of entire generations of Germans, Poles, Russians, Jews...
It brought shame to a country that was also blamed for one bloodbath just 20 years earlier.
Then there was the added notion of neo-nazism springing up in force and letting them have the former symbols to use as a rallying point.


* The Geneva convention was first drafted during the times of the CW, we can't really talk about the actual rules being broken during the CW

[areo16]

Originally Posted by Betonov

The US civil war was an internal matter. Americans killing Americans due to a different idea of, bluntly putting it, level of centralization of the union. As brutal as a war can be, there was no other atrocities apart from the usual ''breaches of the Geneva convention*'' we see even today. And in times when the global media was an occasional telegram from over the seas.

Nazism was an international matter. A madman followed by madmen invading other countries in a notion that some races are superior resulting in the destruction of entire generations of Germans, Poles, Russians, Jews...
It brought shame to a country that was also blamed for one bloodbath just 20 years earlier.
Then there was the added notion of neo-nazism springing up in force and letting them have the former symbols to use as a rallying point.


* The Geneva convention was first drafted during the times of the CW, we can't really talk about the actual rules being broken during the CW

Did you grow up in Germany or do you live there?

[Betonov]

Originally Posted by areo16

Did you grow up in Germany or do you live there?

Neither.

Call it an independent observation by an outsider interested in both world wars and the US civil war.

[Oberon]

I can see this going well...


Anyway, as a nation who was on the receiving end of some of the Third Reichs finest, I struggle frequently to understand the banning of the swastika, but equally I can understand the fear and worry of it being hijacked by Neo-Nazis. However, one does have to ponder that if the swastika holds such power because of its blood stained past, then what of the hammer and sickle? It is drenched in as much blood if not more than the swastika, and yet it is still perfectly permissible to use it within Russia.
There are other genocides, including the colonisation of the Americas if one wishes to look upon it as such, which have taken a higher death toll than the Holocaust, and yet the events are often overlooked and dismissed.

Still, it is a German internal matter, and if Germany is fine with it, then that is the main thing really. I don't fully understand it, and think that banning things only tend to make them more alluring to those already susceptible to such things, but it's not for me to decide on such matters.

[Wolferz]

Iron cross it out.
Still, it was odd that the Nazis would choose a Hindu religious symbol for their moniker.
Wars are started with lies, for the express purpose of controlling resources that the aggressors don't possess.
There is nothing on this planet worth stealing or killing other human beings for. Nothing!

[Skybird]

The name "Hitler" is banned in Germany as well, you can name your child "Adolf", but it is done almost never, but a second name "Hitler" is banned.

The simply unimaginable monstrosity of the crimes back then explain sufficiently why the symbols used to represent those committing them, are no-go now. Holocaust and the the amount of human suffering due to WWII in Europe and Russia, is second to none, in its dimension and perfidy. You cannot use the standards by which you would judge other, ordinary wars and crimes, to describe them. This dark event stands out from the background of human history. Wanting to "un-ban" it now, holds not the smallest positive gain, none.

The evilness and nothing-but-barbary-kind of nature of Nazism and the third Reich, stands beyond any doubt and must not be given any space for doubt anymore. To ban reminding symbols for them, therefore is acceptable, and in no way can be demonised as "banning free mind and free speech". To unban them , holds not a single positive gain, none.

We have growing objections to forming free opinions and free speech and free minds, encoded in social standards and this thing called political correctness and what in German I usually call Gesinnungs- und Tugendterror. Swastika and "Hitler" being banned, is not part of that.

I think, Nazi parties and organisations should be banned, too, and persecuted without any forgiveness. As I said, their barbaric basic nature and ideology history already has proven beyond even the smallest of the smallest doubts. Root it out. the argument of giving something the benefit of the doubt as long as it has not indeed fully proven to be guilty, is invalid here.

That the swastika has been hijacked and originally was a symbol of luck and happiness, cannot chnage that it last was used for the purpose of enormous horror and terror, and that it has left a branding sign on history, therefore.

To hell with all Nazi scum there is. I refuse to care for their interests and to be bothered by putting them on the list of endangered species.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Skybird

The name "Hitler" is banned in Germany as well, you can name your child "Adolf", but it is done almost never, but a second name "Hitler" is banned.

The simply unimaginable monstrosity of the crimes back then explain sufficiently why the symbols used to represent those committing them, are no-go now. Holocaust and the the amount of human suffering due to WWII in Europe and Russia, is second to none, in its dimension and perfidy. You cannot use the standards by which you would judge other, ordinary wars and crimes, to describe them. This dark event stands out from the background of human history. Wanting to "un-ban" it now, holds not the smallest positive gain, none.

The evilness and nothing-but-barbary-kind of nature of Nazism and the third Reich, stands beyond any doubt and must not be given any space for doubt anymore. To ban reminding symbols for them, therefore is acceptable, and in no way can be demonised as "banning free mind and free speech". To unban them , holds not a single positive gain, none.

We have growing objections to forming free opinions and free speech and free minds, encoded in social standards and this thing called political correctness and what in German I usually call Gesinnungs- und Tugendterror. Swastika and "Hitler" being banned, is not part of that.

I think, Nazi parties and organisations should be banned, too, and persecuted without any forgiveness. As I said, their barbaric basic nature and ideology history already has proven beyond even the smallest of the smallest doubts. Root it out. the argument of giving something the benefit of the doubt as long as it has not indeed fully proven to be guilty, is invalid here.

That the swastika has been hijacked and originally was a symbol of luck and happiness, cannot chnage that it last was used for the purpose of enormous horror and terror, and that it has left a branding sign on history, therefore.

To hell with all Nazi scum there is. I refuse to care for their interests and to be bothered by putting them on the list of endangered species.

You're into psychology, IIRC, Sky ?

I'm confident you've been a good student, and let your mind sink peacefully in that sea of self-hate to the point it may hardly be recoverable nowadays, but I truly hope for the best of your country, for the best of the german youth. And so I'm hoping for a re-awakening of nationalism (in all countries), following an intense overhaul of that actual educational system your country is not responsible for, and out of which it will hardly take any advantage.

The bad thing is that the educational system is pretty much the same here - there's one and only evil on the one hand, one and only martyr on the other...
It's kind of strange when you're a little boy to get to know you live so close from Hell, haha.

Well the neo Nazi has spoken, I hope Alex put you all right on the beautiful nationalist ideology of the crooked cross.
I bet education is a global jewish conspiracy