Nazi Salute.

timothy leary wrote: So let's see Ivan, you can say" I believe there's an extr.....abuse of freedom of speech in America" but I better say nothing about Peru, which admittedly since I know little about Peru,  I would not do anyway but see here in America we "abuse" freedom of speech if such a thing can be done

Are you serious?

Do you actually LIVE in the USA?


Edited by CCVP - March 01 2011 at 16:27

CCVP wrote: timothy leary wrote: So let's see Ivan, you can say" I believe there's an extr.....abuse of freedom of speech in America" but I better say nothing about Peru, which admittedly since I know little about Peru,  I would not do anyway but see here in America we "abuse" freedom of speech if such a thing can be done Are you serious? Do you actually LIVE in the USA?

Sure do

Coincidentally I was just reading about the Barry Black vs. Virginia case from 2003. Essential reading for these kind of laws. Needless to say, the motivation of the Court was very interesting, as it supported the guy's right to burn a cross, while not denying that's a symbol of social hatred. If I understand right, the US Constitution will allow such elements of speech in the idea of protecting free speech, if they don't imply a actual threat. Very interesting, and maybe for us non-Americans, surprising. It appears to work well in the US. The German law would be non-constitutional in the US. But then, the context in the US is very different to that from Europe (more countries have similar laws, if I'm not wrong, and not only for Nazist symbols/speech). In Europe, there are quite a lot of Neo Nazis and right-wing extremist party that grew because of the massive immigration in the last two decades. There is an actual fight, and by fighting Nazism and fascing, these countries are not fighting long-dead ennemies (this @Brian). While innitially surprised by the logic of Barry Black vs. Virginia, I respect the American way, and I'd expect the same.


Edited by harmonium.ro - March 01 2011 at 16:39

That is more or less how it works Alex.

Here flag burning is one of the better examples. A lot of people (usually conservatives who of course yell the second amendment and not touching their guns...) get upset over flag burning, saying its so symbolic and in fact is like threatening the first amendment itself.
In reality, powerful symbol or not, a flag is just cloth. As long as no damage is done, and you havn't stolen it from someone else, you should be allowed to burn it, as is protected by the First Amendment.


Sorry if this comes across bad, I mean nothing by it, but is that really that surprising for non Americans? An intriguing lesson.

And OK, maybe there are a lot of neo-nazi's in Europe but do you think they are really a threat? I really have no idea.
Even if it is, freedom of speech is a double edged sword.
Many many people here in the states like to say it, for themselves, but are fine with ignoring it for others. Likewise, freedom of speech means protecting even in the case of these neo nazi's.
One can't pick or choose who gets freedom of speech, assuming of course they are doing no damage, and its legal.

I remember seeing in class once a video about a neo nazi group wanting to march through a town with a big Jewish population, including holocaust survivors. A TERRIBLE thing no doubt, but they did everything legally so nothing should be done to stop them. If they don't turn violent then, like I said freedom of speech isn't always pretty.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote:   So if you slaughtered every newborn female for a good harvest I have no right to judge your laws? I can judge whatever the hell I want to judge. Please Equality, don't make a "reductio ad absurdum". If a crime against humanity is commuted, the United Nations can even send troops, but we are talking about our perception of freedom of Speech for  our reality, a reality about wich you don't know a damn thing.. You can criticize what you want, but we are allowed to ignore your opinion...It's our country and you have no business about our laws. So let us decide our fate. Iván

CCVP wrote: JJLehto wrote: Well good to know for Germany (and I figured as much) but are you sure about that with Japan? Guess it's not a huge surprise though. And on topic: Yeah that's crazy. Banning of Swastika's and the nazi salute... It was horrifying, but time to move on eh? Many many places in the US certainly have no issue showcasing their...historical heritage despite the bad past they've had. Yeah, I'm pretty sure. Japan is one of the most right-wing countries in the world. I'm actually surprised nobody calls it a dictatorship. I mean, one party ruled the contry almost unopposed for over 50 years (only recently the opposition got to elect one prime minister). And Brian, did you forgot that Germany was basically the ONLY country that was strong/big enough to be punishged at all during both WW? I mean, even today, after the country lost about half of its territory and a VERY considerable amount of its arable land, mineral-rich lands and more than half of its industry (Silesia + Alssace-Lorraine, they only kept the Rineland after the war), they are still the 3rd/4th richest country of the world. They were the only one with something worth taking. Besides, on both wars Germany was basically blamed for virtually EVERYTHING that happened, even though it wasn't like that, specially in the WW1. Because thet took that blame they are still bound by those laws. But seriously, a nazi swastika should NEVER be allowed to be used anywhere. these things belong in the past for a reason, like do slavery and genocide.

Don't know enough about Japan to really engage in that, sorry.

I'm not sure what the punishing thing has to do with it, but IMHO that is horrifying. No country should be punished in war, ever. "To the victor goes the spoils!" is what led to WWII. Even more wrong since you couldn't blame Germany for WWI as you said. Even in the case of Nazi Germany, war should be treated as a bad thing all around, even for the victor. Thus I feel no one should be punished.
Sorry if I missed your point, I think I did.

As for the swastika like I said with Alex man, freedom of speech is NOT always pretty.
You mentioned slavery, that was the point I was making about some Americans showcasing their heritage despite their past wrongs.
A swastika, confederate flag, any symbol of hate or injustice is just that, a symbol.
Like words, they may be powerful but you can't censor them. Long as you don't burn it onto someone else's lawn or threaten them.

JJLehto wrote: That is more or less how it works Alex. Here flag burning is one of the better examples. A lot of people (usually conservatives who of course yell the second amendment and not touching their guns...) get upset over flag burning, saying its so symbolic and in fact is like threatening the first amendment itself. In reality, powerful symbol or not, a flag is just cloth. As long as no damage is done, and you havn't stolen it from someone else, you should be allowed to burn it, as is protected by the First Amendment. Sorry if this comes across bad, I mean nothing by it, but is that really that surprising for non Americans? An intriguing lesson.

The flag burning is obviously nothing more than expressing rage, that's not surprising. However a ritual of the KKK, which is (or was) an organization with an impressive and accounted body-count, now that's something different, enough to warrant at least an initial surprise.

JJLehto wrote: And OK, maybe there are a lot of neo-nazi's in Europe but do you think they are really a threat? I really have no idea.

I'm not an expert in politics either, but afaik there are concerning cases. The most relevant one was about a decade ago, I think, when a right wing party with Nazi sympathies came to power in Austria (see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B6rg_Haider) One of the parties in power in Italy may have fascist sympathies, and there are many extremist parties that keep growing since recent times. Hopefully it will remain at speech level.

JJLehto wrote: There are some exceptions though, where it's been upheld freedom of speech is not guaranteed in some cases. Schools, the military, slander/libel for example. At least I was told that in a high school law class Edit: Pat can help us I'm sure.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Please, WHERE DID I SAY I ACCEPT MILITARY INTERVENTION?

 

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote:   It's not a reductio ad absurdum. Clearly you think that some policies are up for criticism by your response. It seems that you have just decided for the rest of the world which policies may and may not be criticized. I believe every country is entitled to create their own laws, criticism is OK, but some aggressive terms as iduiotic or Fascism are abusive, just because we don't share your perspective  Them being Fascist isn't really opinion. They fit the bill of Fascism. If the shoe fits, I'm calling it Fascism. If the law that I called idiotic is insulted, he can write to me and I will formally apologize.  I find it strange that you accept military intervention before you accept a verbal criticism. I'm not sure what that says.  Please, WHERE DID I SAY I ACCEPT MILITARY INTERVENTION? Germany and Perú are democratic countries with authorities elected by the people. Please don't change my words as you normally do. Ivan wrote: If a crime against humanity is commuted, the United Nations can even send troops Of course you can ignore my opinion. I ignore yours all of the time. But countries have many stupid, immoral laws, and I plan to criticize them at my leisure. Classical arrogance, you want to impose your system or what you believe is correct to all the world.. Iván Classical arrogance. Your system is imposed upon the world so all must accept it.

Edited by Equality 7-2521 - March 01 2011 at 17:13