This banner is against the law in Germany
The German government said on Monday a law penalizing people for displaying Nazi symbols might need to be changed after a court fined a man for selling anti-Nazi T-shirts and badges bearing swastikas.
The Nazi emblem appeared on the items in a circle with a large red line through it.
But a state court in the southwestern city of Stuttgart ruled on Friday it still violated German law because it risked making the hooked cross acceptable again.
Justice Minister Brigitte Zypries questioned the logic of the decision in the Maerkische Allgemeine newspaper on Monday, saying that if the ruling was confirmed by a higher court, then the law itself was flawed.
Under German law, performing a Hitler salute, wearing Nazi uniforms or displaying the swastika can carry a penalty of up to three years in prison.
Many nations understand the history behind the original laws — having suffered Nazi oppression. I wonder what the average American thinks about this controversy.
Freedom of speech is not and has never been absolute. As the old case about “the right to yell fire in a crowded theater” shows, our obligation to society is stronger then our right to voice potential injury. Nor may we encourage the commission of a crime. The same applies to libel and slander. We restrict people’s right to ruin another’s reputation. So contrary to popular belief, we only have some freedom of speech
Maybe with America’s much less restrictive freedom of speech, we find restrictions on thought un-comforting, I know I do. Yet, if we look at the history behind this restriction, it does make a lot of sense. When will a sufficient period of time have gone by? I don’t know, but obviously there are still wounds.
The one thing I do hope for is that the memory of what happened during the Nazi’s reign of terror never leave us. Too many have suffered far too much for their lives to be lost in vain.
>the symbol incurs certain feelings and attitudes which are hateful >toward a group of people.
So I guess you would ban anything that fits that criteria? Maybe we should fine John Dvorak for some of his posts about Islam? Or how about people that make anti-Christian statements?
Anyone know the history of this law? My guess is that this law isn’t really German but was imposed by the US and others who were worried about a return of the Party.
#22:
Why do you insist on absolutes? The world is not simple.
The commandments include ‘Thou shalt not kill’, but we still train and maintain armies and armed police forces. Why? Because, distasteful as it may be, sometimes killing is for the good of our society.
The US constitution says free speech is to be protected. Is there no room for exceptions here, when we can accept exceptions to the bible’s commandments?
There is a social value in having taboos. You can tell a lot about a society by the taboos it keeps. A society that has taboos about childhood sex, for example, is a society that wants to protect children from predators. A society that has taboos about symbols associated with xenocide wants to remember and avoid the mistakes of the past.
If you remove the taboo, you make the associated behaviour easier. In the one case, most of the western world has laws banning sexual images of children. In the other case Germany has laws banning images associated with the holocaust. In both cases the goal is the same: Retain the taboo. Make it clear, through law, that the associated behaviour is unacceptable.
There is a spectrum here, without absolutes. Are comments about Islam, such as the ones you say John made, so abhorrent to our society that they should be banned outright? Is child sex so abhorrent to our society that it’s images should be banned outright? Is the holocaust so abhorrent to our society that it’s symbols should be banned outright?
Your choice. Pick where you live and vote for people who agree with you. The Germans have decided. I’ve made my views clear.
Brian.
fuckin skint heads