Swastikas and Germany in the modern day...

[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.

[areo16]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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.

Apparently swastikas aren't that superficial if they are being banned in your country. Your widening the topic, when there is more than enough to discuss within the OP topic already.

[Bilge_Rat]

I fail to see how this is a freedom of speech issue.

Freedom of speech is never totally free, you are not able to say anything, anywhere with no restriction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...ech_exceptions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._O%27Brien

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_...irst_Amendment)

Germany has chosen to ban the swastika symbol. Big deal. Let's move on.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by areo16

Apparently swastikas aren't that superficial if they are being banned in your country.

That causal conclusion is illogical. The ban itself holds no info on whether the issue is superfical an issue or not. But you m ake a big deal of it, while it is not really, and certainly is no indication in itself for a crackdown on free speech.

The swastika ban simply means so little for many Germans that many of us simply prefer to not care much for the "issue" at all. It's there, fine. If it wouldn't be there, most people would not care also, except maybe the Central Committee of German Jews. NSA scandal, Snowden revelations, the intimidation of sources for reporters, global communication control and privatesphere being hacked, and Patriot Act - that is what should get your attention much more, because it does much more damage in the present, leads much further than the swastika ban, and holds much more substantial a description of contemporary society and the way it is moving in the US. Compared to that, your indignation over partial bans of Nazi symbols in Germany is theatrical, sorry. If at least you would have started about the several eastgerman counties where the Nazis have become the dominant political faction again, then at least you would have had a relevant point, but - this...?

You remind me of this saying a bit, regarding the splinter in the other's eye, while ignoring the beam in one's own. There are more serious threats to free speech and free mind, than the German swastika ban.

[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).

[Sailor Steve]

Your earlier point was that if I wanted to exercise free speech I had to own the property or else it meant nothing. My point was that the right to freedom of speech is protected in "publically owned" land, as long as it's not disrupting others' rights to move about or conduct business. Deny it all you like, spin it all you like, we do indeed have freedom of speech in public places. Sorry if you don't.

As to your PS: Did you miss the part where I said "impromptu"? Yes, a rally that will disrupt public business must be scheduled, but even when they're not they usually are allowed to continue. Also, that doesn't address what I said about preaching on a street corner. It happens from time to time, and it's entirely legal, and protected.

[Camaero]

Are German prisons filled with people who tattoo swastikas on themselves like in the US?