Swastikas and Germany in the modern day...

[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.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by areo16

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.

1917 the US under Wilson released the infamous Espionage Act which widened the definition of "spionage", to allow legal prosecution of wide-spread public opposition to getting the US involved in the war in Europe.

Under Bush, also under Obama, a tight regime was implemented aiming at controlling white house correspondents and to bring them into line with their questions and researches, preventing unwanted information getting published, not to mention the intimidation of reporters by legal threats risen under the cynically so-called "Patriot" Act. Legal rules were introduced that aim at drying out reporter's information sources, to allow that the WH alone defines what the "truth" and what the real "information" is. Manipulation of the flow of information aims at brainwashing and influencing public opinion forming. - Free mind and resulting free speech means little if transparency and unfiltered information is systematically prevented.

Or think of what free speech is worth if somebody's only source of information that he bases his knowledge of political events on, is a manipulating propaganda station like FOX.

The mind using - or being banned from having - freedom of speech, is more profound. And many people today get all day long systematically brainwashed and indoctrinated.

And I do not even go into anonymous social pressure, and social standards that people "voluntarily" submit to and that again manipulate the ways of their thinking.

Freedom of speech is not at the core of it. Like a brush is a tool for the painter, free speech is a tool for the thinking mind. If the painter has no artistic talent, than being free to use brushes as he likes is of no meaning/importance for him, and what a manipulated mind thinks it has to say, is not that important, like a dilettante's painting is just an amateurish scribbling.

[Betonov]

I see nothing wrong with Reagans gesture.

They were brainwashed and that meant they were victims long before they were killed. No excuse for the atrocities but they payed for it with their lives.

[areo16]

Originally Posted by Skybird

1917 the US under Wilson released the infamous Espionage Act which widened the definition of "spionage", to allow legal prosecution of wide-spread public opposition to getting the US involved in the war in Europe.

Under Bush, also under Obama, a tight regime was implemented aiming at controlling white house correspondents and to bring them into line with their questions and researches, preventing unwanted information getting published, not to mention the intimidation of reporters by legal threats risen under the cynically so-called "Patriot" Act. Legal rules were introduced that aim at drying out reporter's information sources, to allow that the WH alone defines what the "truth" and what the real "information" is. Manipulation of the flow of information aims at brainwashing and influencing public opinion forming. - Free mind and resulting free speech means little if transparency and unfiltered information is systematically prevented.

Or think of what free speech is worth if somebody's only source of information that he bases his knowledge of political events on, is a manipulating propaganda station like FOX.

The mind using - or being banned from having - freedom of speech, is more profound. And many people today get all day long systematically brainwashed and indoctrinated.

And I do not even go into anonymous social pressure, and social standards that people "voluntarily" submit to and that again manipulate the ways of their thinking.

Freedom of speech is not at the core of it. Like a brush is a tool for the painter, free speech is a tool for the thinking mind. If the painter has no artistic talent, than being free to use brushes as he likes is of no meaning/importance for him, and what a manipulated mind thinks it has to say, is not that important, like a dilettante's painting is just an amateurish scribbling.

Yes, but your getting off track. I've stated that freedom of speech seems to be more robust in the states than it does in Germany. US does not outlaw the display of any symbols or flags in a public place unless they are a crime as to a physical threat to someone.

We all know that our freedom of speech isn't freedom, but we Americans try to test the limits day to day as we know there is a limit somewhere. The limits change according to place and time. However, the Sumpreme Court is more consistant than other judgements.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by areo16

Yes, but your getting off track. I've stated that freedom of speech seems to be more robust in the states than it does in Germany. US does not outlaw the display of any symbols or flags in a public place unless they are a crime as to a physical threat to someone.

We all know that our freedom of speech isn't freedom, but we Americans try to test the limits day to day as we know there is a limit somewhere. The limits change according to place and time. However, the Sumpreme Court is more consistant than other judgements.

I fail to see where I bypass the topic. I just outlined that there is more to it and that freedom of speech has a more subtle complexity to it than just this - after all very superficial - German thing on swastikas.

[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.

[Skybird]

You are wrong there, Friscobay. I am quite confident that if a stranger would suddenly stand in your living room and start to hold a political speech or a religious nuthead interrupts a cinema movie by stepping onto the stage and starting to engage people in a missionary speech or a fellow would raise in the restaurant walking from table to table trying to get people engaged in an argument over something, would make the owners of the place call the police or throw him out themselves. Same is true for the guy who starts to yell ideological paroles in the backyard after midnight and all windows become lit again, or a person storms a radio office and demands to be broadcasted, or some body demands the newspaper to print his essay for free although the newspapers refuses to print it.

You have to "own" the "place" and the "time" to practice free speech, if you do not own them, then your right of free speech is worth nothing. And we should be thankful for that. Regarding our private sphere, homes, houeses: its our places, and so its our rules. Somebody else is not free to say and do just anything within these just like he pleases.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Skybird

You have to "own" the "place" and the "time" to practice free speech, if you do not own them, then your right of free speech is worth nothing.

Not quite true, at least not here. The protected right includes all "non-owned" properties. While you can't do it in a so-called "public" property, such as inside a federal or state government like a courthouse, outside on a street corner anyone can preach pretty much anything they like. If someone wants to stand on the sidewalk in front of the Mormon Temple in Salt Lake City and preach against the Mormon Church, they are free to do so. Impromptu anti-government rallies take place on the grounds of the Salt Lake City government building and the Utah State Capitol from time to time, and nothing is done to stop them.

[Skybird]

The public, non-owned space yopu refer to, actually is owned, by this abstraction called "the common good" or the "the state". And the latter either allows it, or deems that the first, which is amdinstered by the latter, should accept it. In both cases, there is an owner of the place who has allowed it.

The non-owned space you mention could only be had these days if you would find an island in non-claimed internaitonal waters where no state makes any claims. As long as no pirvate person has taken possession nof this land by gouing there and making use of it and turning it that way into his/her own possession, it is not owned, and thus just anybody could do just anything there. Needless to say, that state of not being owned would soon come to an end.

States are only capable to do a lot of things because they claim to be their own possession what they have stolen from private possession before. That includes the land and property that is used to build "public" roads" on, "public" plazas and buildings, and the like, also much rural countryside is now "owned" by states. Imagine if all this would not be owned by states, but would be private property indeed - imagine how little power states and governments would have then to enforce policies against the people's will, then! No migration that is not wanted by the local residents could happen without each and every land owner explicitly giving his agreement to let foreigners walk over his lawn, so to speak. No tax-collectors could reach their victims whom they want to blackmail for protection money. No state officials and no armies could march around against the will of the land owners. On the other hand, local populations would need to come to terms with themselves, and decide in the region what kind of infrastructure to be built in order to serve everybody.

Right now, two years ago those Nazis I mentioned could march around my block and hold their yelling speeches because the state "owned" the paths and ways and crossroads they walked upon, and decided that the state should allow these thugs doing so, although the overwhelming majority of the population - almost everybody - here was totally against it. The police shielded every single house, every single lawn and garden, every single door, the sight was truly monumental. Not only did the police that way made clear that the unwelcomed Nazis were not to enter private property - but for the hours the show was going on, private people were hindered to leave their own property and walk onto the "public" road, police did not allow anybody to leave his home if he was still in there (many however had gone to demonstrations before - and during the time she show was running were not allowed to go back into their homes.

The state enforced its will upon us - we did not want to have that scum parading around here.

P.S. Ownership of the time and place could also mean that you legally lease the opportunity from the original owner to use his assets. For example you lease a townhall for an evening to hold an assembly, or you rent broadcasting time on TV. Or you use opportunities provided by< the state, like parading in the public space (which nevertheless must be gained formal permission for, a demonstration for example must be registered with the police, and a court can prohibit it under certain circumstances. Both institutions represent the state who can only act this way because he claims possession of the so-called public sphere).

[Friscobay]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Not quite true, at least not here. The protected right includes all "non-owned" properties. While you can't do it in a so-called "public" property, such as inside a federal or state government like a courthouse, outside on a street corner anyone can preach pretty much anything they like. If someone wants to stand on the sidewalk in front of the Mormon Temple in Salt Lake City and preach against the Mormon Church, they are free to do so. Impromptu anti-government rallies take place on the grounds of the Salt Lake City government building and the Utah State Capitol from time to time, and nothing is done to stop them.

Now here is an excellent example.


For many years, groups of humanists, atheists, and even those of other Christian sects believing Mormonism to be a fraud, have arrayed themselves in protest at SLCs Temple Square, in deference to both the freedoms of, and from, religion. [ Thomas' Paine and Jefferson, were they living men, would see no ironies in such displays ]. When I was at The U of U, I both enjoyed the practice of the Tabernacle Choir lifting its voices to the heavens singing their praises of God as well as the discussions from the non-believers out on State St bars serving 3.2 beer with neither side, threatening the other. The agreements to disagree were more prevalent.

This is the realization of the Founders ideals. In like way, we can USE the swastika as a purely historical device, without for one moment, embracing that which it stood for. Indeed, speaking of just the Mormons, was their own series ''Saints At War'' which was a documentary compilation of LDS members who served as decorated combat soldiers and sailors in the ETO/PTO. It is my belief, [ my own father was a B-17 pilot in the 8th ], that we can well know the difference between ''use'' and ''promotion''.

SUBSIM is about the former.... Not the latter...

[Friscobay]

Originally Posted by Skybird

You are wrong there, Friscobay. I am quite confident that if a stranger would suddenly stand in your living room and start to hold a political speech or a religious nuthead interrupts a cinema movie by stepping onto the stage and starting to engage people in a missionary speech or a fellow would raise in the restaurant walking from table to table trying to get people engaged in an argument over something, would make the owners of the place call the police or throw him out themselves. Same is true for the guy who starts to yell ideological paroles in the backyard after midnight and all windows become lit again, or a person storms a radio office and demands to be broadcasted, or some body demands the newspaper to print his essay for free although the newspapers refuses to print it.

You have to "own" the "place" and the "time" to practice free speech, if you do not own them, then your right of free speech is worth nothing. And we should be thankful for that. Regarding our private sphere, homes, houeses: its our places, and so its our rules. Somebody else is not free to say and do just anything within these just like he pleases.

Of course, but you did NOT frame the discussion in this manner. You included ALL speech which offends into the private world of ''space and time''.

It does not work that way. I clearly noted the exceptions granted the ''owner-operator'' of the private realm. [ who also has the right to include gaming modifications that display German naval ensigns that bear the swastika device as SUBSIM does ]. However, ''space and time'' does not allow protection from offense in other arenas. I made this plain as well. Germanys concerns are obvious and understandable. They both lost the war and started this issue to begin with. However, their guilt, cannot in any way, shape, or form, transfer itself to an expectation that a society such as that of the US, must relinquish its own devotion to the centuries-pondered ideals of free speech simply because you continue to struggle with the legacy of Hitlers Germany. Especially given the fact that these rights, were codified long before there even was a ''Germany'', let alone that ruled by a Third Reich. It is why American flags can be burned. It is why ''Illinois Nazis'' can march in Skokie and elsewhere.

[areo16]

Originally Posted by Skybird

You are wrong there, Friscobay. I am quite confident that if a stranger would suddenly stand in your living room and start to hold a political speech or a religious nuthead interrupts a cinema movie by stepping onto the stage and starting to engage people in a missionary speech or a fellow would raise in the restaurant walking from table to table trying to get people engaged in an argument over something, would make the owners of the place call the police or throw him out themselves. Same is true for the guy who starts to yell ideological paroles in the backyard after midnight and all windows become lit again, or a person storms a radio office and demands to be broadcasted, or some body demands the newspaper to print his essay for free although the newspapers refuses to print it.

You have to "own" the "place" and the "time" to practice free speech, if you do not own them, then your right of free speech is worth nothing. And we should be thankful for that. Regarding our private sphere, homes, houeses: its our places, and so its our rules. Somebody else is not free to say and do just anything within these just like he pleases.

Why is it that you are interpreting our Bill of Rights into a literal meaning from which they were never meant to represent the day they were written over 200 years ago? You're describing incidents which would violate other laws like curfews, verbal threats, trespassing and disturbing the peace. They didn't write this amendment so someone could have the right to yell at the top of their lungs at someone else just 3 inches away from their ear 24 hours a day seven days a week. Nor did they put into the constitution that in order to live free someone must first breath to live , which involves breathing in and out by first inhaling and then exhaling, because these things were implied. They also have to eat once in a while and drink water at least every three days in order to live, before they can live to exercise their freedoms.

You are taking the Bill of Rights out of its context, which is a document which guards the rights of man from the abuses of government. What you are talking about has nothing to do with this. The amendments were not written to tell someone how to treat others, as if its some kind of common courtesy pamphlet.