German politician says Obama win 'a declaration of war' ...

[Abdul Alhazred]

Calls for prosecution after German politician says Obama win 'a declaration of war' (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/barackobama/3438017/Calls-for-prosecution-after-German-politician-says-Obama-win-a-declaration-of-war.html)
Telegraph (UK)

German authorities have been called on to prosecute a far-right politician for describing Barack Obama's election as a "declaration of war" on white people and accusing his supporters of being "swept up in Obama fever which resembles an African tropical disease"

n a statement headed "Africa conquers the White House," Juergen Gansel, a deputy in the Saxony state legislature from the far-right National Democratic Party of Germany, said multicultural America was seeking the destruction of "pure" national cultures.

Accusing Mr Obama of aiming to destroy the US's "white identity", Mr Gansel said: "A non-white America is a declaration of war on all people who believe an organically grown social order based on language and culture, history and heritage to be the essence of humanity."

Warning that "Barack Obama hides this declaration of war behind his pushy sunshine smile," Mr Gansel, whose party sympathises with neo-Nazi groups, said that Mr Obama's election was the result of "the American alliance of Jews and Negroes".

...

In the USA it would be legal to say this, yet the USA elected Barack by a comfortable majority.

But in Germany he must be prosecuted because ordinary Germans absolutely can't resist this stuff and need to be protected from it for their own good and the good of the world.

Wouldn't want another world war would we? Right?

[Architect]

Once again, someone from North America completely fails to grasp differing views on incitement to racial or religious hatred on each side of the pond.

[CFLarsen]

"We urge state authorities to do their utmost within legal bounds to prosecute such incitement," she said. "We are investigating the legal situation concerning the statement and will continue monitoring closely political statements using extremist language."

There have been calls for prosecution. Not the same thing as there being a prosecution.

The latter is admittedly a far better a story than the former...

[ravdin]

What an idiot. Any politician should know that you're not supposed to say that sort of thing in public.

[Pardalis]

Where's Oliver when we need him?

[brodski]

Where's Oliver when we need him?

I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand the second half of that question.

Oh and I agree with Claus, until one can show that the Berlin branch of the American Jewish Committee has any official standing and direct influence on [prosecutions this is pretty much a non story.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Once again, someone from North America completely fails to grasp differing views on incitement to racial or religious hatred on each side of the pond.

Sure I understand the differing views, I just think you guys are wrong.

Why bother with reason when sneers work quite nicely, right old boy? :cool:

[Abdul Alhazred]

There have been calls for prosecution. Not the same thing as there being a prosecution.

The latter is admittedly a far better a story than the former...

In the USA there would be no calls for prosecution. Because this is a free country.

There'd be demands for his resignation and like that, yes.

[PhantomWolf]

Sure I understand the differing views, I just think you guys are wrong.

There is a difference between having the right to say anything, and having the right to say anything with impunity. You can't yell fire in a crowded theatre without possible consequences unless there really is a fire. You can't say that Bill Gates is a child mosleting satanist without possibly being sued for liable. Free speach only goes so far, and if that speech is deemed to an attempt to incite violence and hatred towards other groups, I see no reason that the speaker should not be prosecuted.

[PhantomWolf]

I'd also note that while the German constitution guarantees 'freedom of voicing one's opinion', the German Criminal Code specifically forbids inciting hatred against ethnic groups. The article in the OP could certainly fall under that.

[WildCat]

What an idiot. Any politician should know that you're not supposed to say that sort of thing in public.
It's the beauty of the parliamentary system. You say things like that to appeal to the 5% of the population that you think are nazis/white supremacists/etc, and BAM! You get 5% of the seats in the Bundestag!

At least that's the theory. But it appears this particular party isn't represented at all in the Bundestag, so apparently they drew less than the required 5% of the vote.

[Architect]

In the USA there would be no calls for prosecution. Because this is a free country.


Yes, of course it is, and those of us in Europe struggle to break the bonds, etc. etc.

Let's be quite clear. The ECHR guarantees freedom of speech saving for where there are issues regarding incitement to commit crime, most notably of a religious or racial nature.

There is no substantive public support for any removal of this protection for what is recognised to be vulnerable minority groups, indeed there is considerable pressure for extremist Muslim clerics to be prosecuted for actively seeking to encourage terrorism within the UK.

If you want to start a thread about whether the USA enjoys greater substantive "freedom" than comparable European democracies then do so.

On a final note, I suggest you brush up on nationalities when making the "old boy" type comments, what with that being English and everything. And me not being.

[brodski]

Sure I understand the differing views, I just think you guys are wrong.

Why bother with reason when sneers work quite nicely, right old boy? :cool:

by "you guys" I take it that you mean th eAmericans who have made the calls your OP referrers to?

[egslim]

What an idiot. Any politician should know that you're not supposed to say that sort of thing in public.
Depends on what part of the electorate you cater to. I doubt this particular politician cares about mainstream opinion.

But in Germany he must be prosecuted because ordinary Germans absolutely can't resist this stuff and need to be protected from it for their own good and the good of the world.
What a load of pure excrement.

In the aftermath of WWII Germany had to prove itself internationally as a non-nazi nation. Anti-German sentiment was fierce, and the country remained under occupation until 1955. So Germany was forced to adopt anti-nazi legislation that annoys free speech fundamentalists.

And because too many people are still touchy about "silly stuff" like the holocaust, repealing these laws remains a political no-no in Germany.
Personally I expect that as the generations with living memories of WWII die off, these laws will become dead letters and will eventually be repealed about 50 or 100 years from now. Until then they represent a minor nuisance.

[Architect]

I do wonder if Abdul has a problem with libel/slander/defamation laws, what with them being impediments to "free speech"?

Well, old bean?

[Abdul Alhazred]

There is no "group libel" law in the USA for good reason.

It could be used to silence dissent.

[Abdul Alhazred]

How is it we allow Nazis, but have fewer of them?

[Architect]

Proof?

[Beerina]

Once again, someone from North America completely fails to grasp differing views on incitement to racial or religious hatred on each side of the pond.

Mocking it seems to work better. Also, there's the issue with being able to silence unpopular opinions, which I'm lead to believe has a horrible history associated with it, but I'm not quite so sure.

[Abdul Alhazred]

I do get the "fire in a crowded theater" thing.

In the USA if you go around saying "Let's round up and kill all the blacks" you are apt to get beat up (not officially of course), certainly you'd be shunned, but not prosecuted.

In Germany (or Europe generally), they have to prosecute because of the danger of big heaps of folks responding favorably.

Only if this is true do European "hate" laws make sense.

Otherwise it's just an excuse for lumping political opponents together with Nazis. That exists in the USA as a rhetorical trick, but not as law.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Interesting question. Does the USA really have fewer Nazis, or just very ineffective ones?

Now that I think of it, I have to admit I'm not sure which it is.

[gtc]

On a final note, I suggest you brush up on nationalities when making the "old boy" type comments, what with that being English and everything. And me not being.

Evidence that it is an English rather than British term?

[Jimbo07]

I suggest you brush up on nationalities when making the "old boy" type comments, what with that being English and everything. And me not being.

Okay, you first.

Once again, someone from North America completely fails to grasp differing views on incitement to racial or religious hatred on each side of the pond.

I'm as North American as some are European...

[BenBurch]

Should it be legal to be a moronic nazi-wannabe who incites war?

But then, if it is, should it also be legal to throw folks like that off a cliff?

[ravdin]

On this side of the pond it appears bizarre that you can be imprisoned for denying the Holocaust but you can wave a sign that says "Behead those who insult Islam" with impunity. As long as this is the case, claims that banning certain types of speech in the interest of not inciting hatred don't wash.

[PhantomWolf]

In the USA if you go around saying "Let's round up and kill all the blacks" you are apt to get beat up (not officially of course), certainly you'd be shunned, but not prosecuted.

And if someone did it you'd be arrested and thrown in jail for inciting murder.

In Germany (or Europe generally), they have to prosecute because of the danger of big heaps of folks responding favorably.

No, the procecute because it's illegal to incite hatred of other groups.

The difference here is that the US waits until that speech has killed someone, Europe doesn't.

[rwguinn]

And if someone did it you'd be arrested and thrown in jail for inciting murder.



No, the procecute because it's illegal to incite hatred of other groups.

The difference here is that the US waits until that speech has killed someone, Europe doesn't.
Yeah, its a shame that we think "Prior Restraint" is a crime in itself. It works so well in the rest of the world...

[geni]

In the USA there would be no calls for prosecution. Because this is a free country.

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire

[PhantomWolf]

Yeah, its a shame that we think "Prior Restraint" is a crime in itself. It works so well in the rest of the world...

I'm sure that the person that has to die before action is taken thinks the same too.

[Slayhamlet]

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire

Brandenburg v. Ohio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio) seems more relevant.

[gumboot]

I really don't like incitement laws. Primarily because they don't actually get implemented as incitement laws, but as anti-hate speech laws. It should not be illegal to express racist or otherwise bigoted opinions.

Incitement should require two things:

1) That you actively encourage others to act violently toward others
2) A reasonable person would be aware the encouragement is likely to move others to act

Without these two factors, incitement laws are nothing other than censorship slipped in under the guise of political correctness.

If, for example, an important influential leader comes out in public and says "I really hate women!" That should not be illegal because they have purely expressed an opinion, and not encouraged others to act illegal in any way.

However were that leader to come out and say "I really hate women and we should get rid of them!" That should be illegal. As an influential figure they should know that their opinion carries weight, and that by encouraging others to act violently towards women they are inciting violence.

Finally, were I to announce that I hated women and encourage others to get rid of them, it should also not be illegal because I do not have any sort of influence over masses of people - I would not reasonable expect anyone to act on anything purely because I say they should.

And on a final note, the key word is violence not hatred. Violence is illegal for good reason, and inciting others to commit criminal acts should therefore be illegal. Hatred is not and should not be illegal. I am utterly opposed to any attempt to try censor certain emotions. Therefore, trying to encourage others to hate should also not be illegal.

[tyr_13]

I don't like incitement laws because then the bigoted idiots keep their mouths shut in public and it becomes harder to know who they are and laugh at them. If they get to say their stupid, hateful, crap, then we can tell them how they are wrong.

And more people will believe us because we're right, and they're wrong, right?

[dudalb]

Yeah, its a shame that we think "Prior Restraint" is a crime in itself. It works so well in the rest of the world...


Sadly, I am pretty much resigned to the fact that many Euros are more willing to sacrifice inidvidual liberty on the Altar of "Social Progress" then people in the US are inclined to do .

[Rasmus]

The NPD is a fringe party, currently they are most successful in one state parliament, anywhere else they are elected on lower levels only.

It seems that these opinions were published in a press-statement and not as part of parliamentary debate, btw., which was the impression I had gotten from the OP.

The full text (in German) is available here, lacking a source, though ...

http://nordsachsen.freies-netz.com/allgemein/afrika-erobert-das-weise-haus-mit-barack-obama-wurde-der-prototyp-des-entwurzelten-weltburgers-in-das-wichtigste-amt-der-welt-gewahlt/

[CFLarsen]

There seems to be two very different sentiments.

"There has to be bodies on the slab first. And even if there is, there will be no amount big enough for me to do anything."

and

"Wait a minute... We have seen that these types of threats carry a high risk of something happening. Let's protect each other - especially minorities - from persecution and violence."

"Let's close our eyes" vs. "Let's learn".

There are many ways to silence people. Laws, political correctness, hypocrisy. Can you say the N-word in public in the US? Sure, you are "free" to do it. But you can't really - can you? Because if you do, you will be silenced: Not by law, but by the mob.

Why is mob rule better than law?

Want to talk about the denazification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denazification) the Allied (predominantly the United States) imposed on the Germans after WWII? That's mind control, baby.

[Architect]

Sadly, I am pretty much resigned to the fact that many Euros are more willing to sacrifice inidvidual liberty on the Altar of "Social Progress" then people in the US are inclined to do .

We're pretty much resigned to the fact that you value the "liberty" to own military grade arms for domestic use, despite having very high murder rights, or the fact that you don't provide even a halfway decent healthcare system for your most vulnerable. So what's your point, caller?

[Francesca R]

despite having very high murder rightsWow they've sure expanded civil freedoms since I was there a month ago! Unless you mean murder rates.

[monoman]

On this side of the pond it appears bizarre that you can be imprisoned for denying the Holocaust but you can wave a sign that says "Behead those who insult Islam" with impunity. As long as this is the case, claims that banning certain types of speech in the interest of not inciting hatred don't wash.

Is this true in Germany?

You'd be arrested in the UK with a sign like that.

[gtc]

We're pretty much resigned to the fact that you value the "liberty" to own military grade arms for domestic use, despite having very high murder rights, or the fact that you don't provide even a halfway decent healthcare system for your most vulnerable. So what's your point, caller?

Completely off topic.

[Rasmus]

Is this true in Germany?

You'd be arrested in the UK with a sign like that.

I am quite sure that bearing such signs in Germany would be illegal.

I wouldn't be surprised, though, if a lone police officer decided not to charge into a demonstration to arrest whoever was holding that sign....

And I wouldn't be surprised, either, if Religion was afforded a lot mor tolerance in cases like this than anyone else would, too.

[gtc]

You'd be arrested in the UK with a sign like that.
[/URL]

That is what happened and there was at least one conviction. I think the misunderstanding arose because the people holding the signs weren't arrested immediately.

[URL="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article741256.ece"]http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article741256.ece (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umran_Javed)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umran_Javed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umran_Javed)

[Abdul Alhazred]

The various polities of western Europe are tough on "incitement" (very broadly interpreted), but soft on murder itself.

Why is that?

[Architect]

The various polities of western Europe are tough on "incitement" (very broadly interpreted), but soft on murder itself.

Why is that?

Evidence?

[Georg]

On this side of the pond it appears bizarre that you can be imprisoned for denying the Holocaust but you can wave a sign that says "Behead those who insult Islam" with impunity. As long as this is the case, claims that banning certain types of speech in the interest of not inciting hatred don't wash.


Then we Germans are incredibly lucky that this is definitely not the case......
Before you go on telling nonsense, do your homework, please.

Is this true in Germany?


The answer is a clear "no":

Section 111 Public Incitement to Crime

(1) Whoever publicly, in a meeting or through the dissemination of writings (Section 11 subsection (3)), incites an unlawful act, shall be punished as an inciter (Section 26).

(2) If the incitement is unsuccessful, then the punishment shall be imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine. The punishment may not be more severe than that provided in a case in which the incitement is successful (subsection (1)); Section 49 subsection (1), no.2, shall be applicable.

Section 26 Incitement

Whoever intentionally induces another to intentionally commit an unlawful act, shall, as an inciter, be punished the same as a perpetrator.



Sorry to disturb your German bashing with facts. Carry on.

[Architect]

Completely off topic.

No more so than the poster's glib, unsubstantiated soundbite about Europeans allegedly signing away their "freedoms".

[Chaos]

Abdul "knows" that all Germans are Nazis. He has "known" that for years. Nothing as insignificant as mere proven facts is going to dissuade him from that "knowledge". Could everybody please stop feeding the troll?

[D'rok]

No more so than the poster's glib, unsubstantiated soundbite about Europeans allegedly signing away their "freedoms".

Don't worry about it. Folks like the OP say the same things about Canadians. They are not to be taken seriously.

[President Bush]

Does the USA really have fewer Nazis, or just very ineffective ones?


Here in the US we have the American Civil Liberties Union which supports neo-Nazi rights to burn down American Civil Liberties Union headquarters:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39182

[Flo]

The various polities of western Europe are tough on "incitement" (very broadly interpreted), but soft on murder itself.

Why is that?

I trust you have extensively researched our various laws, policies and current events on those matters, and will provide us with facts and evidence so we can mend our ways ... ;)

[Architect]

I'm trying not to laugh.

[Darth Rotor]

Should it be legal to be a moronic nazi-wannabe who incites war?
Where did he incite war? He seems to suggest that Americans are inciting war against his nice, pure, Germanotopia.
But then, if it is, should it also be legal to throw folks like that off a cliff?
I hear we fire bombed a few of them some decades ago, which is just as much fun. Given this fellow sounding off, his effects will either grow, or be mitigated by people recognizing his less than brilliant reasoning. If the former is what comes to pass, ample warning has been given for preparation to any harm he and his movement can do. Where's the problem?

Why are some forms of moronity legal in your eyes, Ben, and other forms of moron illegal?

DR

[Abdul Alhazred]

Canada is indeed following the lead of the western European ruling class. I suppose it discredits me to mention that?

[Abdul Alhazred]

Abdul "knows" that all Germans are Nazis. He has "known" that for years. Nothing as insignificant as mere proven facts is going to dissuade him from that "knowledge". Could everybody please stop feeding the troll?

You finally showed up. :cool:

I don't exactly say all Germans are Nazis but that's OK.

[D'rok]

Canada is indeed following the lead of the western European ruling class. I suppose it discredits me to mention that?
Yes.

[Abdul Alhazred]

The German laws about Nazi propaganda make perfect sense -- if and only if Nazi propaganda is utterly irresistable.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Because the Canadian Human "Rights" Commission always gets his man.

Well actually they don't, which is a hopeful sign for Canada.

[Flo]

Canada is indeed following the lead of the western European ruling class. I suppose it discredits me to mention that?

Yes, unless you can prove that the western European ruling class is "tough on "incitement" (very broadly interpreted), but soft on murder itself" ...

[D'rok]

Thank goodness we have the shining beacon of the city on the hill just south of us to guide our way back from the darkness.

[Soapy Sam]

How is it we allow Nazis, but have fewer of them?

Abdul. The German people are (rightly) ashamed and disgusted by what they allowed themselves to slide into in the 1930s. The lesson Europe learned is that the most cultured peoples can slip into barbarism frighteningly fast, merely by letting rather common, narrow minded attitudes become accepted as legitimate political orthodoxy, backed by state-sanctioned violence .

We can live without repeating that mistake.

That it happened to Germany was a matter of historical contingency. There is absolutely no guarantee that Britain or America are somehow "Nazi-proof" by dint of superior strength of character or government.

If post-Nazi era Germans are rather sensitive on this particular abuse of unlimited free speech, it should neither surprise nor shock us. Indeed it would be shocking if they were not.

I will not defend to the death anyone's right to be a Nazi.
Indeed if that's the best a man can do, I feel it's better he dies.
The only good Nazi is a dead Nazi.
If anyone out there has failed to grasp that simple fact, he must be profoundly stupid or worse.

[ravdin]

There are many ways to silence people. Laws, political correctness, hypocrisy. Can you say the N-word in public in the US? Sure, you are "free" to do it. But you can't really - can you? Because if you do, you will be silenced: Not by law, but by the mob.

You can. I hear it on the street quite often and I even heard Jesse Jackson use it once when he didn't realize he was on camera. The catch is that you have to be black to get away with it.

[Beerina]

No, the procecute because it's illegal to incite hatred of other groups.

The difference here is that the US waits until that speech has killed someone, Europe doesn't.Yeah, its a shame that we think "Prior Restraint" is a crime in itself. It works so well in the rest of the world...

...especially Europe.

[cwalner]

Yes, unless you can prove that the western European ruling class is "tough on "incitement" (very broadly interpreted), but soft on murder itself" ...

Flo, I think AA is confusing the European and Canadian positions that punishing murder by commiting state sanctioned murder is wrong with being soft on murderers.

On another note, I do think the statements on the OP do come close to incitement to war. I think that claiming that 'party X has declared war on us' is not substantively different from 'we should go to war with party X'. since the first statement is often used as a reason for making the second.

However, since party X in the specific example is another nation (the US) and not directly a minority group in Germany (although implications of association are certainly there), I am not certain that the statements would fall under the perview of the German anti-incitement laws.

[Darth Rotor]

On another note, I do think the statements on the OP do come close to incitement to war. I think that claiming that 'party X has declared war on us' is not substantively different from 'we should go to war with party X'.
Yes it is. Different. Granted, he might get to that point, but his opening argument is that "they" are doing something of a threat to us. See also the Israelis who point out that they, Iran, are doing something of threat to us, developing nukes. That isn't an incitement to war either. It's a statement of threat, valid or otherwise.
However, since party X in the specific example is another nation (the US) and not directly a minority group in Germany (although implications of association are certainly there), I am not certain that the statements would fall under the perview of the German anti-incitement laws.
Likely not, but I don't know the nuances well enough.

It is one thing to claim that someone else has declared war on you, quite another for that claim to stand up, and thus any linked claims to fall asunder, like yours, stating "we should go to war with party X."

DR

[Gurdur]

You finally showed up. :cool:

I don't exactly say all Germans are Nazis but that's OK.


It should be noted that Abdul Alhazred's hatred of "Europe" or Germany has nothing to do with free speech. It's simply because most of western Europe is social democratic, as is Germany, and Abdul Alhazred just doesn't like that. He doesn't like that at all, and will use any ammunition he can find whatsover, no matter how much he contradicts himself. Now that Obama has been elected in the USA, Abdul Alhazred is facing failure on the home front, so it's back to bashing the "Europeans".

As for Beerina, hey. Good luck with trying to get Beerina to respond to dispassionate refutations; it's always just the same old, same old.

It's not allowed in some western European countries to make certain agitprop that contravenes laws on inciting murder etc.; the fact that neither Abdul Alhazred nor Beerina seem to be able to get the facts straight ever points to a woeful prejudice of theirs about "Europeans", and a complete irrelevance. Western Europe has, as anyone who actually visits and studies the place, a very high degree of political freedom and participation (and a much, much bigger degree of voter participation than in the USA, as well as far more range of parties in parliaments than in the USA, owing to proportional voting); but that doesn't interest the ideologues in the slightest. It's pure strawman-bashing all the way, and incredibly boring at that.

[Architect]

I'll be crying all the way to my socialised, free healthcare and 25 days a year full paid annual leave, thinking about suing the state using the legal advice they pay for, then contemplate watching Newsnight to see what a PR elected parliament has come up with......

[Eskarina]

It's pure strawman-bashing all the way, and incredibly boring at that.

Actually, I find it somewhat amusing.

On the one hand you've got the OP in this thread whinging about the lack of freedom of speech in Germany, on the other hand, there's Cicero starting a thread in the Politics section lamenting the rising nationalism in Germany.

Seems that we're damned if we do and damned if we don't, so, on the gripping hand, I say "Fyunch(click) to you as well". :rolleyes:

[gtc]

Why are some forms of moronity legal in your eyes,

Because almost no one wants to be arrested.

[ravdin]

I'll be crying all the way to my socialised, free healthcare and 25 days a year full paid annual leave, thinking about suing the state using the legal advice they pay for, then contemplate watching Newsnight to see what a PR elected parliament has come up with......

Free?

Your healthcare system may be superior to ours. But it isn't free- not unless your doctors are slave laborers, in which case I take back what I said about your system being better.

The state's not paying for your "free" services, mate. You are.

[Architect]

Free at the point of delivery, yes, to all regardless of whether they've paid any taxes or not - and for those taxpayers, at a substantially lower cost than the US system for at least comparable standards of living. But hey, that's off topic and has been covered many, many, many times in other threads!

[Abdul Alhazred]

Because I hate social democracy? Talk about a strawman.

[Soapy Sam]

Back to your tunnel, meanie!

[Chaos]

Actually, I find it somewhat amusing.

On the one hand you've got the OP in this thread whinging about the lack of freedom of speech in Germany, on the other hand, there's Cicero starting a thread in the Politics section lamenting the rising nationalism in Germany.

Seems that we're damned if we do and damned if we don't, so, on the gripping hand, I say "Fyunch(click) to you as well". :rolleyes:

Being the designated chew toy for legions of clueless, ignorant bigots has its charms, I suppose, but at the moment I find myself unable to appreciate them.

Maybe I´ll go start a thread about how US laws against porn on TV prove that US citizens would break out in orgies of mass fornication if they were allowed to see a bare boob on primetime TV.

[DC]

Germans are still so Nazi like that during the Soccer World Cup in Germany, the Germans had debates about if it is ok to wave so many german flags, wear clothes with the German colors and such.
They seemed unsure if it still patriotism and not already Nationalism. Im not really a fan of my German neighbors, but they are handling theiyr Patriotism very well.
Also do i like their fight against right wing propaganda.

Also we can compare the poll numbers of German right wing parties , how much do they get.

and how much did the republicans get in the USA?

[Bob Blaylock]

In the aftermath of WWII Germany had to prove itself internationally as a non-nazi nation. Anti-German sentiment was fierce, and the country remained under occupation until 1955. So Germany was forced to adopt anti-nazi legislation that annoys free speech fundamentalists.


Of course, the Nazis were very big on suppressing basic rights, such as freedom of speech. Acting like Nazis in this regard does not seem to me like a very good way to demonstrate anti-Naziism. If Germany really wants to distance itself from Naziism, then it should act like a true non-Nazi free country, and protect all the basic vital human rights, including the right to free speech.

[Bob Blaylock]

I will not defend to the death anyone's right to be a Nazi.
Indeed if that's the best a man can do, I feel it's better he dies.
The only good Nazi is a dead Nazi.


Replace the word “Nazi” in this statement with any other group that is unpopular in some circles, and the true meaning of your words will become more apparent.

I will not defend to the death anyone's right to be a Jew.
Indeed if that's the best a man can do, I feel it's better he dies.
The only good Jew is a dead Jew.

I will not defend to the death anyone's right to be a Socialist.
Indeed if that's the best a man can do, I feel it's better he dies.
The only good Socialist is a dead Socialist.

I will not defend to the death anyone's right to be a Capitalist.
Indeed if that's the best a man can do, I feel it's better he dies.
The only good Capitalist is a dead Capitalist.

I will not defend to the death anyone's right to be a Scientologist.
Indeed if that's the best a man can do, I feel it's better he dies.
The only good Scientologist is a dead Scientologist.

I will not defend to the death anyone's right to be a Mormon.
Indeed if that's the best a man can do, I feel it's better he dies.
The only good Mormon is a dead Mormon.

I will not defend to the death anyone's right to be a Muslim.
Indeed if that's the best a man can do, I feel it's better he dies.
The only good Muslim is a dead Muslim.

[CFLarsen]

The catch is that Jesse Jackson did not get away with it, even though he was black. He was silenced - not by law, but by the mob.

[Flo]

Flo, I think AA is confusing the European and Canadian positions that punishing murder by commiting state sanctioned murder is wrong with being soft on murderers.

Oh, I got that. It's the "tough on incitement" I'd like him to support with evidence ...

On another note, I do think the statements on the OP do come close to incitement to war. I think that claiming that 'party X has declared war on us' is not substantively different from 'we should go to war with party X'. since the first statement is often used as a reason for making the second.

However, since party X in the specific example is another nation (the US) and not directly a minority group in Germany (although implications of association are certainly there), I am not certain that the statements would fall under the perview of the German anti-incitement laws.


I would need to hear or read the actual words to have an idea if this particular statement is actionable in a court of law in Germany or in any European country with "hate speech" laws. However, I would be neither surprised nor shocked should it be, given the particular context, i.e. the existence of extreme-right groups who have amply demonstrated their willingness to act upon the slightest encouragement to their profound hatred of anyone "non white" and their longing for a return of the good old times under the rule of dear Alfred ...

[Georg]

Of course, the Nazis were very big on suppressing basic rights, such as freedom of speech. Acting like Nazis in this regard does not seem to me like a very good way to demonstrate anti-Naziism. If Germany really wants to distance itself from Naziism, then it should act like a true non-Nazi free country, and protect all the basic vital human rights, including the right to free speech.


Ah, the "our system is superior" approach again.....
Before you continue telling nonsense about Germany and its Nazi tendencies here, why don´t you just go back to this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=125636&page=1) that you fled after obviously running out of arguments and answer this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4119336#post4119336)?
Maybe I´m wrong and you just forgot to answer? If that´s the case, , I´ll copy my last post directed to you for your convenience, so you can answer it here:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's very simple and obvious.

One of the most basic and vital of all human rights is the right to believe what you will, and, to express this belief. If you believe that the Holocaust didn't happen, then that is what you believe, and you have every right to say so, and any government that tries to tell you otherwise is wrong.

The Holocaust denier is exercising this right. The evolution denier is exercising this right. Brigitte Bardot was exercising this right when she complained about how she thinks Muslims are ruining France.

A pornographer is not exercising this right. Obscenity is not an expression of an opinion or a belief. As far as our courts have been able to form any coherent opinion on the matter, one of the important defining traits is that to be obscene, the material in question must lack any “serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test)” Such definition specifically excludes the Holocaust denier, the evolution denier, or Brigitte Bardot's anti-Islamic rants, from being suppressed as obscenity; as they are expressing seriously-held beliefs that have political value..

Looks like shifting the goalposts for me. Earlier on you argued:

This is just plain, obvious, common sense. If you use your “freedom of speech” in a manner that violates someone else's rights, then that's where it ends.

I think it's clear enough. You don't limit one person's rights until it becomes necessary to do so in order to protect some other right that is in conflict with it.


Under Germany's thoughtcrime law, it is the speech itself that is the crime, and not some genuine crime for which the speech is merely a tool. This is an important difference between Germany's thoughtcrime law, and every other instance that you or anyone else has proposed involving libel/slander, fraud, incitement, extortion, etc.

You now narrow down "freedom of speech" to "freedom of expression of belief".
Where were the rights of others violated in the Max Hardcore case?
Was someone forced to buy or watch his videos?
Was someone forced to "act" in his videos?

According to your earlier expressed pov, this restriction of freedom of speech cannot be justified. So the U.S. has just different topics than Europe/Germany where they draw the line.
How is that substantially better?
It´s still some years in jail for producing pornography against some years in jail for holocaust denying, and I fail to see why one way would be superiour compared to the other.
And again I point out that I do not necessarily agree with the German law.
My goal is to show that the expressed arrogance of you towards Europe has no basis in reality.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Will you answer now, or pretend my post isn´t there?
I personally prefer porn (even if it´s a kind of porn I do not like) to be freely available to holocaust denying scumbag hate speech being freely available, but that´s just me......

[tyr_13]

Ummmmmm, wait, pornography is illegal in the US?

*goes to clear his browser history*

[Georg]

Ummmmmm, wait, pornography is illegal in the US?

*goes to clear his browser history*


Some, yes. (http://tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/article838305.ece)

[Aepervius]

Sodomy was long forbbiden between consenting adult in some state (might still be).

Explain me why it is soooo wrong to forbid nazi speech and free-speech is so sacro-saint, but consensual sexual act between two adult is wrong.

pot. kettle.

PS: don't get me started either on the story of one single breast shown on tv prime time. Or the law on indecency/obsenity whatever it is called.

[Adavidson]

Seriously. This just pisses me off, how the hell can someone say :"Mr Obama's election was the result of "the American alliance of Jews and Negroes" and expect to get away with it????

The scary part is that people are suseptible to crap like that. I hope he loses his job, his wife leaves him for a huge, strong and handsome black man, and his kids turn out to be gay.

[Eskarina]

Being the designated chew toy for legions of clueless, ignorant bigots has its charms, I suppose, but at the moment I find myself unable to appreciate them.

It's just my way of avoiding the physical pain resulting from banging my head against the wall. Or on the desk. But it doesn't necessarily mean that I suffer fools gladly. :)

Maybe I´ll go start a thread about how US laws against porn on TV prove that US citizens would break out in orgies of mass fornication if they were allowed to see a bare boob on primetime TV.

Good luck! I haven't seen any reports about mass fornication after Nipplegate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XXXVIII_halftime_show_controversy). (Pity, really.) Just lots and lots of complaints.

To be fair, though, it should have come with the "Kids, don't do this at home!" disclaimer. With regard to the piercing, I mean.

[tyr_13]

Sodomy was long forbbiden between consenting adult in some state (might still be).

Explain me why it is soooo wrong to forbid nazi speech and free-speech is so sacro-saint, but consensual sexual act between two adult is wrong.

pot. kettle.

PS: don't get me started either on the story of one single breast shown on tv prime time. Or the law on indecency/obsenity whatever it is called.

What is stupid is that you all seem to believe Americans agree with all their own laws, or that Germans believe in all their own laws. I don't agree with many indecency laws, and I don't believe that speech should be censored except in extreme an obvious cases of clean and present danger.

The reason of this is simple; who gets to decide what is wrong? I'm not comfortable with that power being granted to the mob that votes. Social reactions, yes, but not legal ones.

[Chaos]

Another point... that Nazi nut says that a "declaration of war" has happened.

If you have ever taken even a cursory look at a history book, you will know what people tend to do when war is declared against them - they fight. With, you know, violence and stuff. The kind of thing that gets people killed.

Don´t you think that we should take this kind of implicit threat of violence serious?

[tyr_13]

Actually if you take an actual look at a history book, you'll see that often times people will use this kind of speech as a rhetorical tool.

It is a way to polarize a base, and use fear as a tool of control. It very well could lead indirectly to violence, or it could very well lead to the limited support they have disolving away. Give them enough rope to hang themselves with.

[Darth Rotor]

I hope he loses his job, his wife leaves him for a huge, strong and handsome black man, and his kids turn out to be gay.
It would be funnier if he loses his wife to a strong and handsome gay man, and his kids turn out to be black. :D

[Eskarina]

It would be funnier if he loses his wife to a strong and handsome gay man, and his kids turn out to be black. :D

Nominated for Pith.

But you do owe me a keyboard. Shall I PM you my bank account details or is posting them here enough?

[Darth Rotor]

Nominated for Pith.

But you do owe me a keyboard. Shall I PM you my bank account details or is posting them here enough?
I am sure we can come to a satisfactory arrangement. :cool:

[Eskarina]

I am sure we can come to a satisfactory arrangement. :cool:

Only if it involves making substantial, I repeat, substantial transfers to my bank account, in Euros preferably, although I do accept US Dollars, too. Well, anything really, as long as it isn't in Zimbabwean currency.

[Bob Blaylock]

Of course, the Nazis were very big on suppressing basic rights, such as freedom of speech. Acting like Nazis in this regard does not seem to me like a very good way to demonstrate anti-Naziism. If Germany really wants to distance itself from Naziism, then it should act like a true non-Nazi free country, and protect all the basic vital human rights, including the right to free speech.

Ah, the "our system is superior" approach again.....
Before you continue telling nonsense about Germany and its Nazi tendencies here, why don´t you just go back to this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=125636&page=1) that you fled after obviously running out of arguments and answer this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4119336#post4119336)?
Maybe I´m wrong and you just forgot to answer? If that´s the case, , I´ll copy my last post directed to you for your convenience, so you can answer it here:
·
·
·
You now narrow down "freedom of speech" to "freedom of expression of belief".
Where were the rights of others violated in the Max Hardcore case?
Was someone forced to buy or watch his videos?
Was someone forced to "act" in his videos?

According to your earlier expressed pov, this restriction of freedom of speech cannot be justified. So the U.S. has just different topics than Europe/Germany where they draw the line.
How is that substantially better?
It´s still some years in jail for producing pornography against some years in jail for holocaust denying, and I fail to see why one way would be superiour compared to the other.
·
·
·
Will you answer now, or pretend my post isn´t there?
I personally prefer porn (even if it´s a kind of porn I do not like) to be freely available to holocaust denying scumbag hate speech being freely available, but that´s just me......


I'm really not interested in defending obscenity, indecency, or pornography. That's an entirely different beast, that has nothing whatsoever to do with freedom of speech. If you want to start a thread, taking the U.S. to task on this matter, go right ahead. But it has no relevance to the Germany's Orwellian thoughtcrime laws. Pornography is not inherently an expression of an opinion or a belief, in the manner that the sorts of speech that are illegal in Germany are.

There's an important point here, that Germans (and indeed, other Europeans) don't seem to get. When a government is able to put forth its version of “truth”, and to prosecute as criminals any who challenge them with their own, different versions of “truth”, that is a very dangerous thing. The ability to challenge government on matters of history, policy, and whatever, and to put forth opinions and beliefs that are contrary to what the government puts forth, is the second most important restraint on tyranny.

Germany has an official position regarding the historical accuracy of accounts of The Holocaust. That's fair enough. Most of us accept the accounts, as supported by Germany's official position, to be accurate and truthful. There are some who do not. There are some who believe that The Holocaust did not occur in the manner that is most widely accepted, and that Germany's position is wrong. Most of us think that such people are kooks, and their beliefs are very unpopular in most circles; but in any truly free society, their right to hold and to express these beliefs would be recognized and protected.

It is, after all, not popular, widely-accepted and liked beliefs, that are in need of protection. Nobody is going to threaten me, attempt to censor me, or even attempt to have me criminally prosecuted, for expressing a belief that he agrees with and supports.

This thread isn't about pornography, or Holocaust denial. It's about some kook in Germany who says that by electing Obama, the U.S. has somehow “declared war” on all white people, including those in Germany. He's a kook for believing and saying this, but in a free society, being a kook who holds and expresses unpopular and controversial beliefs isn't a crime. A free society protects the rights of those who hold and express minority beliefs, no matter how much the majority may disagree with them.

Under Naziism, this right was not protected in Germany; it was routinely violated. Those who dared to openly disagree with the government on any matters of policy or truth were subject to prosecution as criminals. Now, sixty years after the Nazis were removed from power — and after nearly all of them have died off — Germany really isn't any different in this regard. People can still be prosecuted as criminals in Germany for expressing beliefs that go against the government's official position.

[Soapy Sam]

Replace the word “Nazi” in this statement with any other group that is unpopular in some circles, and the true meaning of your words will become more apparent.
I will not defend to the death anyone's right to be a Jew.
Indeed if that's the best a man can do, I feel it's better he dies.
The only good Jew is a dead Jew.I will not defend to the death anyone's right to be a Socialist.
Indeed if that's the best a man can do, I feel it's better he dies.
The only good Socialist is a dead Socialist.I will not defend to the death anyone's right to be a Capitalist.
Indeed if that's the best a man can do, I feel it's better he dies.
The only good Capitalist is a dead Capitalist.I will not defend to the death anyone's right to be a Scientologist.
Indeed if that's the best a man can do, I feel it's better he dies.
The only good Scientologist is a dead Scientologist.I will not defend to the death anyone's right to be a Mormon.
Indeed if that's the best a man can do, I feel it's better he dies.
The only good Mormon is a dead Mormon.I will not defend to the death anyone's right to be a Muslim.
Indeed if that's the best a man can do, I feel it's better he dies.
The only good Muslim is a dead Muslim.

Bob , replace the words in a text-only communication and the meaning may disappear entirely.
Your post is a fine example.

We all draw lines in the moral sands about what we will tolerate.
If you disagree with my opinion of Nazis, that's your business.
My father put his life on the line fighting these people, to the death.
I hope I would too.

[Georg]

I'm really not interested in defending obscenity, indecency, or pornography.


Now that´s interesting, regarding how you reacted to Soapy Sam´s comment:

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam
I will not defend to the death anyone's right to be a Nazi.
Indeed if that's the best a man can do, I feel it's better he dies.
The only good Nazi is a dead Nazi.



Your own words, then:

Replace the word “Nazi” in this statement with any other group that is unpopular in some circles, and the true meaning of your words will become more apparent.


So, let´s try it out:

I will not defend to the death anyone's right to be a porn producer.
Indeed if that's the best a man can do, I feel it's better he dies.
The only good pornproducer is a dead pornproducer.


Yes, that works well. What´s the difference exactly?
There is someone doing something that you do not like.
One difference is that in the porn example no harm for anyone not voluntarily involved could possibly arise.
Not so sure about the hate speech stuff.......

Your comment

that has nothing whatsoever to do with freedom of speech


seems to be just a copout, I´m sorry:

Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and by many state constitutions and state and federal laws. Criticism of the government and advocation of unpopular ideas that people may find distasteful or against public policy, such as racism, are generally permitted. There are exceptions to the general protection of speech, however, including the Miller test for obscenity, child pornography laws, and regulation of commercial speech such as advertising.


From wiki. Not the source of all wisdom, I know, so if you find a source claiming different, I´m willing to listen.
And I´m still waiting for an answer why punishing producing porn is superior to punishing people that spout hatred.

[Darth Rotor]

Now that´s interesting, regarding how you reacted to Soapy Sam´s comment:

And I´m still waiting for an answer why punishing producing porn is superior to punishing people that spout hatred.
I am trying to get how porn and politics get mixed in the same thread.

Bill Clinton. OK, there, I said it. :p

I am also trying to understand how porn, and its limitations in distribution, is a matter of political tyranny equated to the challenging, on whatever merits, the "official governent story" on anything.

I mean, jeeze, why not jail those who challenged the official government story on the Watergate break-in, rather than have to deal with it. Some things the government has to be able to have the final say on, ya see?

DR

[mrbaracuda]

I for one agree with Mr. Blaylock and am fond of his position, which I share, and of him putting it to bits and bytes yet another time! (At least I remember you talking about freedom of speech before, where I also agreed with you). But don't mind Georg or Chaos, or even Cheney! They're probably haunted by the looming blown out of proportion BS about the rise of the Nazis around every corner, which is very "in" here and not just at the moment. :)

The "fight against the right" sure makes some people proud; being able to comfortably "fight the good fight" by doing basically nothing, especially not daring anything. Putting down the .. undesirables has some history over here after all!

[DC]

I for one agree with Mr. Blaylock and am fond of his position, which I share, and of him putting it to bits and bytes yet another time! (At least I remember you talking about freedom of speech before, where I also agreed with you). But don't mind Georg or Chaos, or even Cheney! They're probably haunted by the looming blown out of proportion BS about the rise of the Nazis around every corner, which is very "in" here and not just at the moment. :)

The "fight against the right" sure makes some people proud; being able to comfortably "fight the good fight" by doing basically nothing, especially not daring anything. Putting down the .. undesirables has some history over here after all!

me?

i found #91 very good. made me think, i almost posted that i agree with that.

Because yes, i have not much troubles with the current anti racism and anti holocaust denial laws. But that is indeed because i totaly reject such things anyway.

[DanishDynamite]

Who cares?

[Delvo]

Something that people often forget about what we consider to be crucial rights is that, according to many of those important historical figures who wrote about the need for government to respect them, there's a qualifier. The populace must be willing and able to handle the responsibility that comes with them; it must be predominantly good people who respect what those rights mean and are mindful of the fact that others have them too. Without that it doesn't work; only then is a culture generally considered ready to handle those rights.

Germany is not.

I studied German in high school and college, then dropped it in disgust after actually going there and meeting real Germans. They're obsessed with starting fights over nothing over and over. They spontaneously break into angry sermons about how much greater every little thing about Germany is than anywhere else and how every good thing that's ever been accomplished in the world was done by a German. They philosophically quote (or shout) Nazi sayings as sources of unquestionable wisdom. They're still angry at Americans because a different set of Americans "interfered in Europe's/Germany's business" in WWII. They elect whichever candidate spews the most acidic hatred about the USA or other countries and the biggest conspiracy theories about how the rest of the world is trying to keep Germans down. Their only regret about WWII is that they got stopped. This is not a culture that can be trusted with rights; this is a culture that needs to be held back somehow.

[tyr_13]

Something that people often forget about what we consider to be crucial rights is that, according to many of those important historical figures who wrote about the need for government to respect them, there's a qualifier. The populace must be willing and able to handle the responsibility that comes with them; it must be predominantly good people who respect what those rights mean and are mindful of the fact that others have them too. Without that it doesn't work; only then is a culture generally considered ready to handle those rights.

Germany is not.

I studied German in high school and college, then dropped it in disgust after actually going there and meeting real Germans. They're obsessed with starting fights over nothing over and over. They spontaneously break into angry sermons about how much greater every little thing about Germany is than anywhere else and how every good thing that's ever been accomplished in the world was done by a German. They philosophically quote (or shout) Nazi sayings as sources of unquestionable wisdom. They're still angry at Americans because a different set of Americans "interfered in Europe's/Germany's business" in WWII. They elect whichever candidate spews the most acidic hatred about the USA or other countries and the biggest conspiracy theories about how the rest of the world is trying to keep Germans down. Their only regret about WWII is that they got stopped. This is not a culture that can be trusted with rights; this is a culture that needs to be held back somehow.

Ummm, what? Really? I mean, wow.

When I went to France after studying French I initially hated it. I thought the French were just ********. They were mean, rude, self absorbed, disdainful, and ignorant. That was until we left Paris. It turns out that there were just a bunch of Parisians who were like that (there were a lot of nice ones, they were just rare). The French in other parts of the country were very nice.

Are you sure you didn't just meet a bad group of Germans?

[CFLarsen]

Germany should be enslaved because it is a certain group of people?

Why, that's positively.....(the other N-word)...

[Aepervius]

I'm really not interested in defending obscenity, indecency, or pornography. That's an entirely different beast, that has nothing whatsoever to do with freedom of speech.

This is where you go wrong. You see only ONE freedom, the freedom of speech, in a complete vaccuum, and decide to examine this ONLY. The problem with that logic is the follow. 1) nobody has ever a total freedom of everything in a culture. There are always taboo, or line drawn in the sand as somebody said. 2) the US culture and german (european) culture follow the same principle. Some stuff will be more "holy" and other despised. An example of this : in the US freedom of speech will be "holy" and impediment to it will be painted as the worst of all. But obcenity pornography and sexual aspects will be repressed. You chose the freedom to speech to the cost of other freedom. In europe more or less sexuality is less bridled whereas some speech are regarded as deeply abhoring, so strongly that the cost of supressing freedom of speech is regarded as OK.

This is the old debat that in average the US don't see violence as more repugnant than sexuality, whereas in average we tend to see sexuality as less repugnant than violence.

To take the example I have given above, I don't find that abhorrent to suppress the freedom of somebody to say "jew should be all killed" whereas I find it FAR MORE abhorrent to forbid somebody what I see as normal sexual acts between consenting adults, or even "selling" or "making" pornography or even paint/make/write obsenity. (paradoxaly wasn't the US anyway for a long time the biggest producer of porn ?).

You on the other hand find it more abhorrent that the above mentionned person was not allowed to stand on his soapbox and say its speech, but do not care that much that pornography is not regarded as a free speech (which by the way is IMHO also a form of speech but Hey, whatever bangs you).

You can't take *one* part of debat , one single freedom, and vivisect it as if it was the whole. The truth is that we have the freedom we fight for or want as a society, and as a whole the US and europe are probably as free as each other only on different (intersecting) domain.

PS: freedom of speech is overrated. There are freedoms we both lost a long time ago which IMO are more important, like the right to decide whatever we want to do with our own body, or the declining freedom to privacy. But that is another debate.

[Architect]

I studied German in high school and college, then dropped it in disgust after actually going there and meeting real Germans. They're obsessed with starting fights over nothing over and over. They spontaneously break into angry sermons about how much greater every little thing about Germany is than anywhere else and how every good thing that's ever been accomplished in the world was done by a German. They philosophically quote (or shout) Nazi sayings as sources of unquestionable wisdom. They're still angry at Americans because a different set of Americans "interfered in Europe's/Germany's business" in WWII. They elect whichever candidate spews the most acidic hatred about the USA or other countries and the biggest conspiracy theories about how the rest of the world is trying to keep Germans down. Their only regret about WWII is that they got stopped. This is not a culture that can be trusted with rights; this is a culture that needs to be held back somehow.

I have spent some considerable time in Germany and I have to say that the above is one of the biggest loads of mince I have read in some considerable time.

[Architect]

There's an important point here, that Germans (and indeed, other Europeans) don't seem to get. When a government is able to put forth its version of “truth”, and to prosecute as criminals any who challenge them with their own, different versions of “truth”, that is a very dangerous thing. The ability to challenge government on matters of history, policy, and whatever, and to put forth opinions and beliefs that are contrary to what the government puts forth, is the second most important restraint on tyranny.



Before myself and all the other Europeans start telling you just how wrong your analysis actually is, would you like to advise us how long you've actually spent in Europe or, for example, how much study of UK media and academia you've undertaken before arriving at this rather surprising conclusion?

[Chaos]

I have spent some considerable time in Germany and I have to say that the above is one of the biggest loads of mince I have read in some considerable time.

I have spent even more time in Germany than you did, and "mince" is far too harmless a word to describe Delvo´s post.

[SleuthM]

This is my first look at a discssion thread in JREF - I am a bit surprised. A silly German politician makes a stupid remark, this is reported by some papers (obviously to incite ‘disgusted from…’ reactions), somebody duly asks for prosecution and some contributors to JREF start discussing the state of free speech in Germany, UK, USA? With respect: ‘Butterflies’ and ‘Wheels’ come to mind.

And BTW: the 5% ‘hurdle’ applies to Laender elections in Germany as well, apart from Schleswig Holstein, where the Danish minority gets a seat independent of percentage of vote. (I am NOT trying to raise the ‘Schleswig Holstein Question’ here..)

[Georg]

I am also trying to understand how porn, and its limitations in distribution, is a matter of political tyranny equated to the challenging, on whatever merits, the "official governent story" on anything.
DR

Short explanation: Both are issues of free speech. Bob repeatedly tries to show the superiority of the U.S. over Europe regarding these matters. I brought up the porn example to show that it ain´t so and it is just different matters where the U.S. draws the line. Now Bob is trying to find his way out by saying that the Max Hardcore case has nothing to do with free speech, because he does not seem to have a better argument.
And one could argue that holocaust denial is at least as obscene as porn......

[mrbaracuda]

:words:

Admit it, you had been to the East! :D

[Georg]

I for one agree with Mr. Blaylock and am fond of his position, which I share, and of him putting it to bits and bytes yet another time! (At least I remember you talking about freedom of speech before, where I also agreed with you). But don't mind Georg or Chaos, or even Cheney! They're probably haunted by the looming blown out of proportion BS about the rise of the Nazis around every corner, which is very "in" here and not just at the moment. :)

The "fight against the right" sure makes some people proud; being able to comfortably "fight the good fight" by doing basically nothing, especially not daring anything. Putting down the .. undesirables has some history over here after all!


Maybe you should really read the posts of the posters you mention before you comment on them. That would help you not to look so stupid.


And again I point out that I do not necessarily agree with the German law.
My goal is to show that the expressed arrogance of you towards Europe has no basis in reality.

[mrbaracuda]

Oh but I like to look stupid!
Just for you Georg, just for you.

[Phaedrus74]

I have spent even more time in Germany than you did, and "mince" is far too harmless a word to describe Delvo´s post.

Pretty much agree, Germans are among the most polite people I know.
I always feel that I should apologize for being a crude loud-mouthed Dutchman when I visit.

[Lonewulf]

I studied German in high school and college, then dropped it in disgust after actually going there and meeting real Germans. They're obsessed with starting fights over nothing over and over. They spontaneously break into angry sermons about how much greater every little thing about Germany is than anywhere else and how every good thing that's ever been accomplished in the world was done by a German. They philosophically quote (or shout) Nazi sayings as sources of unquestionable wisdom. They're still angry at Americans because a different set of Americans "interfered in Europe's/Germany's business" in WWII. They elect whichever candidate spews the most acidic hatred about the USA or other countries and the biggest conspiracy theories about how the rest of the world is trying to keep Germans down. Their only regret about WWII is that they got stopped. This is not a culture that can be trusted with rights; this is a culture that needs to be held back somehow. I have spent some considerable time in Germany and I have to say that the above is one of the biggest loads of mince I have read in some considerable time.

I'm still in Eppelheim currently, studying German at the Max Weber Haus under the University of Heidelberg.

I agree with Chaos. "Mince" is too kind. Either Delvo is lying outright, or he saw only what he wanted to see, and the facts be damned.

My experiences have been the exact opposite. In the Max Weber Haus, it's hard to run into a nationalistic/patriotic German, much less one that actually supports the Nazi Party in any way, shape, or form. They seem to enjoy being multicultural more than anything. Of course, I do admit that it's easy to find multicultural people in a building specifically designed to teach multiple cultures.

Still, I have yet to run into a German outside of the University that, in any way, shape, or form, did any of what Delvo claimed they do.

[Georg]

Oh but I like to look stupid!
Just for you Georg, just for you.


No, Mr. toothless toyfish, you provide entertainment for more people, do not underestimate yourself.

[DC]

Pretty much agree, Germans are among the most polite people I know.
I always feel that I should apologize for being a crude loud-mouthed Dutchman when I visit.

Ik hou van Nederlandse mensen.

I love the dutch

[Georg]

Pretty much agree, Germans are among the most polite people I know.
I always feel that I should apologize for being a crude loud-mouthed Dutchman when I visit.


Time for compliments? Allright.
When I travelled extensively, the Dutch were amongst the most pleasant people I met. Without any exception.

[Phaedrus74]

Ik hou van Nederlandse mensen.

I love the dutch

Time for compliments? Allright.
When I travelled extensively, the Dutch were amongst the most pleasant people I met. Without any exception.

And I haven't even begun to sing the praises for the five cases of brilliant Spätburgunder my Girlfriend and I bought last weekend in Rech and Mayschoss!

You see Mr. Baylock, pleasant, courteous and generous.

[mrbaracuda]

Psh, the Dutch! Always with the drugs. :D

[Georg]

And I haven't even begun to sing the praises for the five cases of brilliant Spätburgunder my Girlfriend and I bought last weekend in Rech and Mayschoss!

You see Mr. Baylock, pleasant, courteous and generous.


Please be so kind not to confuse someone with facts who already has formed his opinion :).

[Phaedrus74]

Psh, the Dutch! Always with the drugs. :D

You know it!

Speaking of which, I assume you will be using the same shipping-address?

[mrbaracuda]

No, now that you have almost risked our business I have to change it. :mad: :D

[Phaedrus74]

This is my first look at a thread in JREF (and first attempt at a comment) - I am a bit surprised. A silly German politician makes a stupid remark, this is reported by some papers (obviously to incite ‘disgusted from…’ reactions), somebody duly asked for prosecution and some contributors to JREF start discussing the state of free speech in Germany, UK, USA? With respect: ‘Butterflies’ and ‘Wheels’ come to mind.

I am glad some contributors try to widen the point and deal with the tension between ‘Freedom of Speech’ as a theoretical concepts and its limitations in practice, e.g. the obvious example of shouting Fire! in a crowded theatre (which has its own limited generalisability).

…and btw: the 5% ‘hurdle’ applies to Laender elections in Germany as well, apart from Schleswig Holstein, where the Danish minority gets a seat independent of percentage of vote. (I am NOT trying to raise the ‘Schleswig Holstein Question’ here..)


Hey and welcome to the forum!

First off, good post...

Secondly the dynamic that you identified will become intimately familiar when you hang around a bit longer, but between the nonsense and the posturing some very worthwhile discussions take place. And I have learned a lot lurking around...

Thirdly, the Telegraph is (if I am not mistaken) a paper as much as die Bild-zeitung is a paper: Good for drying your shoes and cleaning up after your dog ;)

[WildCat]

I studied German in high school and college, then dropped it in disgust after actually going there and meeting real Germans. They're obsessed with starting fights over nothing over and over. They spontaneously break into angry sermons about how much greater every little thing about Germany is than anywhere else and how every good thing that's ever been accomplished in the world was done by a German.
OMG, you met Oliver!

What's he look like?


;)

[Oliver]

OMG, you met Oliver!

What's he look like?


;)


Not like a Cat. ;) [I actually had a photo as avatar some months back]

[mrbaracuda]

Here's the original article (http://74.125.39.104/search?q=cache:10kOFh1mjqAJ:www.npd.de/index.php%3Fsek%3D0%26pfad_id%3D7%26cmsint_id%3D1% 26detail%3D1455+http://www.npd.de/index.php%3Fsek%3D0%26pfad_id%3D7%26cmsint_id%3D1% 26detail%3D1455&hl=de&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=de) by the NPD member in Google Cache by the way.

I need a holiday after that article, heh. The part just before the quoted one about the declaration of war is interesting as well though:

Schon das weiße Amerika war eine kulturelle Zumutung für die Welt und zwang freien Völkern mit Waffengewalt ihr multirassisches und damit rassenvernichtendes Gesellschaftsmodell auf;
The white America was already a cultural impertinence for the world and forced at gunpoint their multiracial and therefore race-destroying cultural model on free peoples;

Those guys are really something lol.

[Eskarina]

Eeeeewwwww! What's this? Some kind of pervert international lovefest? What is the world coming to? :jaw-dropp

Seriously though, where do people like Delvo find these hidden hotbeds of hostility and hatred? Wherever I go, not only in Germany but in other countries as well, I usually meet nice and friendly people. Yes, there is the occasional jerk or two, but all-in-all, a good time was had by all. I think.

Maybe the trick simply is being nice to people. In my own experience, they will almost always return the courtesy. Apart from the Parisians, as tyr_13 has already pointed out: they are a bunch of arrogant and rude barstewards.

[mrbaracuda]

This is my first look at a thread in JREF (and first attempt at a comment)

More like 3rd-1st look and comment, am I right? :D

[tyr_13]

Apart from the Parisians, as tyr_13 has already pointed out: they are a bunch of arrogant and rude barstewards.

To be fair, there were some nice people I met in Paris. They just happened to not have grown up there, or had studied abroad.

[tomwaits]

When I was in Ireland, I met some French people and some Italians. The French were very cool people, while the Italians were absolutely obnoxious.

[SleuthM]

May I suggest some general rules when travelling abroad and meeting people from different cultures?

1. If you are impressed and find new and surprising things, stuff which amazes you and makes you question your own ideas of the world, if you feel you learned something:

Shout it to world and tell everybody!

2. If you just think: how odd, stupid, weird are those people, if you find yourself start making value judgments:

Reflect on your limitations to understand people and keep your prejudices to yourself

3. Corollary: If you don’t speak the local language with some degree of fluency you are in no position to make any judgment. Stay at home next time.

[quixotecoyote]

May I suggest some general rules when travelling abroad and meeting people from different cultures?

1. If you are impressed and find new and surprising things, stuff which amazes you and makes you question your own ideas of the world, if you feel you learned something:

Shout it to world and tell everybody!

2. If you just think: how odd, stupid, weird are those people, if you find yourself start making value judgments:

Reflect on your limitations to understand people and keep your prejudices to yourself

3. Corollary: If you don’t speak the local language with some degree of fluency you are in no position to make any judgment. Stay at home next time.

So we can only talk about the good things? I hear the child prostitutes in Thailand provide an excellent back massage.

[tyr_13]

3. Corollary: If you don’t speak the local language with some degree of fluency you are in no position to make any judgment. Stay at home next time.

"Stupid buffoon," happens to be a cognate.

No, you're wrong. you don't have to speak the local language fluently to travel or many any judgment. It is the same as saying that you should speak English fluently to see the Niagara Falls and call it 'belle'.

I don't speak French fluently, but I didn't have much trouble communicating. You don't seem to understand that what I saw where Parisians being mean to other French people as well.

Why would we have to be assume that any negative observation is wrong, but any positive one is correct? I've been to Canada, France, Mexico, and Japan, on top of up and down the East coast of the US, and there are good and bad everywhere. I'm not going to tell everyone that everywhere is great when I don't believe it to be so.

Your advice isn't even to people traveling, but to people after they've traveled.

I agree that jumping to conclusions is wrong, but it's wrong either way. Saying you have to speak the language fluently is just stupid. Then most of the world could only visit one or two places.

[Lonewulf]

Huh. I thought Sleuth was being facetious.

[tyr_13]

Huh. I thought Sleuth was being facetious.

That is entirely possible. If that is the case, I'm an idiot.

[Chaos]

May I suggest some general rules when travelling abroad and meeting people from different cultures?

1. If you are impressed and find new and surprising things, stuff which amazes you and makes you question your own ideas of the world, if you feel you learned something:

Shout it to world and tell everybody!

2. If you just think: how odd, stupid, weird are those people, if you find yourself start making value judgments:

Reflect on your limitations to understand people and keep your prejudices to yourself

3. Corollary: If you don’t speak the local language with some degree of fluency you are in no position to make any judgment. Stay at home next time.

4. Travelling to foreign countries is an opportunity to learn about the people there. In order to learn, you must realize that you do not yet know everything about them that´s worth knowing. If you are not capable of admitting this, then spare these people of your arrogance and stupidity, and stay at home.

[SleuthM]

A. I was (s)lightly tongue-in-cheek, but not facetious, when sending my comment. No need for ‘tyr 13’ to feel ‘an idiot’. Your comments were interesting.

B. There are four possible situations / outcomes, provided the scenario is dichotomous, as I assumed for my ‘General Rules for Comments When Abroad’:

1. Praise and it’s true: good: utility value, say: +5
2. Praise and it’s erroneous: not much harm
but not much use: utility value +1

3. Condemn and you are right: sort of OK: utility value: +2
4. Condemn and you are wrong: possibly disastrous utility value -5

Utility Value of Praise +6
Utility Value of Condemnation -3

QED : The Rule stands

(The above should be in a 2x2 decision matrix which I can’t do in JREF notation: I am a digital migrant and travelled to WWW by foot, bike, swam and hitchhiked; it took me a long time and I still have an accent when speaking WWW)

C. It should be obvious that the rule only applies to cultural differences, such as


forms of greetings
behaviour of groups (quiet, boisterous)
standard modes of communicating (incl. the use of arms and hands)
handling children / the elderly
talking about the history of their country,
displaying national symbols (such as the national flag)
dealing with strangers (foreigners)
handling accents detected in visitors
types of laughter (quiet, loud)
types of plumbing / loo arrangements*

and similar.

Geographical features (Niagara Falls) can be appreciated by all (but even then, there may be subtle differences which are to be appreciated, but not to be condemned)

D. Any rule has exceptions which prove (test!) it. The examples given (including the surely facetious Thailand example from ‘quixotecoyote) test, but don’t break my rule: it stands.

E. I was too careful when I said ‘...If you don’t speak the local language with some degree of fluency…’: Correction: ‘If you don’t speak the language fluently and have lived in the country for a long time: keep condemning comments to yourself. You can of course visit countries without speaking the language: just marvel at the perceived differences but keep your mouth shut with negative comments at all times’

F. ‘tyr 13’ says ‘…Saying you have to speak the language fluently is just stupid. Then most of the world could only visit one or two places.’

Great: That would reduce the global footprint, would it not? People who study culture and language of a country before they go there should travel free and be subsidised.
.
Thank you ‘Chaos’ for the amendment which make the rule even more generalisable.

* I live in England for 30+ years: The plumbing is, generally speaking, appalling! Give me a Motel 6 wet unit anytime.

[SleuthM]

'Tyr 13' '"Stupid buffoon," happens to be a cognate.' How did that get into this thread?

[Lonewulf]

B. There are four possible situations / outcomes, provided the scenario is dichotomous, as I assumed for my ‘General Rules for Comments When Abroad’:

1. Praise and it’s true: good: utility value, say: +5
2. Praise and it’s erroneous: not much harm
but not much use: utility value +1

3. Condemn and you are right: sort of OK: utility value: +2
4. Condemn and you are wrong: possibly disastrous utility value -5

Utility Value of Praise +6
Utility Value of Condemnation -3

QED : The Rule stands

I question the value of your assessment.

Praise and it's erroneous: Can lead to someone visiting a dangerous country and does direct harm to an individual. For instance, telling a woman that she would have full rights in a place like Iran or Iraq. Thus, an overall positive score in this case does not seem to fit.

Condemn and you are right is more than "sort of OK", it can prepare individuals from coming under damage or danger in certain countries, and aid their personal lives. Furthermore, it can bring to light matters that need direct attention; take the case of Ciudad Juarez and Chihuaha (http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/AMR41/030/2005/en), wherein many young women have suffered from rape and murder with the Mexican authorities doing little (and wanting the information to be silenced for a reason).

There are thousands of cases like above in countries all over the world, which each and every one needs to be brought to light. Going by your "utility" argument, Amnesty International has done little overall good, which I do not think is true.

[tyr_13]

'Tyr 13' '"Stupid buffoon," happens to be a cognate.' How did that get into this thread?

Because that's what I was called in France for walking down the street. That is why I didn't have to be fluent in the language to spot the jerk.

[Darth Rotor]

Maybe you should really read the posts of the posters you mention before you comment on them. That would help you not to look so stupid.
When you can show me how government produced porn is involved in this, please continue with this line of reasoning.

Here is your statement put into perspective:

Kittens and hungry tigers are both felines, therefore, treat them identically.

@ Delvo: I live in Germany as a young child, as a young teenager, six years total. Went there frequently as an adult on NATO work. Worked with Germans quite a bit. Your post is utter bollocks.

DR

[Georg]

When you can show me how government produced porn is involved in this, please continue with this line of reasoning.

Here is your statement put into perspective:

Kittens and hungry tigers are both felines, therefore, treat them identically.

@ Delvo: I live in Germany as a young child, as a young teenager, six years total. Went there frequently as an adult on NATO work. Worked with Germans quite a bit. Your post is utter bollocks.

DR

You misunderstand me, sorry. My comment you quoted above was towards toyfish who falsely implied that I defend the restriction of freedom of speech we have in Germany. That´s why I posted my opinion on this after the comment.

The rest of your post: you are wrong. Outlawing porn and outlawing hate speech are both restrictions of free speech.
Again: my whole point regarding Bob is, drawing the line on different issues is no justification for calling one system superior.
And I still fail to see why holocaust denying hate speech should be protected more than producing porn. Care to explain?

[technoextreme]

Want to talk about the denazification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denazification) the Allied (predominantly the United States) imposed on the Germans after WWII? That's mind control, baby.
Yeah that really worked out so well when to this day there is a housing community linked to Nazis that still has a German heritage requirement to live there right down the street from my house. :rolleyes:
:EDIT:
Realized you were not talking about the denazification of the Untied States.

[mrbaracuda]

The rest of your post: you are wrong.

Guess we can go home now, DR. Georg can't possibly be wrong.

[technoextreme]

Sodomy was long forbbiden between consenting adult in some state (might still be).

Explain me why it is soooo wrong to forbid nazi speech and free-speech is so sacro-saint, but consensual sexual act between two adult is wrong.

pot. kettle.

PS: don't get me started either on the story of one single breast shown on tv prime time. Or the law on indecency/obsenity whatever it is called.
Hasty generalization. It's more of a matter of our government's inability to repeal stupid laws than to enforce a moral stance.

[Georg]

Here is your statement put into perspective:

Kittens and hungry tigers are both felines, therefore, treat them identically.



Sort of. As soon as one of them poses a threat, do whatever is necessary to prevent the harm.
So, what has more potential for harm: porn or hate speech? (using the term "hate speech" freely, I mean the denier BS).
In both cases, the government decides what kind of expression is O.K. for the people, and which is not. If you really restrict the right to intervene by the government to cases where harm could be the consequence of doing nothing, what is how I remember Bob saying, his argument just fails.
There is antisemitic violence after all that does not arise from nothing.
I have not heard of a lot of criminal cases where someone was pissed and vomited on, which, according to the article I linked to earlier, were some of the "specialities" of Mr. Hardcore. Disgusting, yes. But what´s the harm?

If it´s not the harm then, that is the justification for the restrictions, what else is it? Subjective morals? If that´s the case, then I´ll gently bow out of this discussion, because I do not believe that any agreement could and will be reached on those grounds.



@ Delvo: I live in Germany as a young child, as a young teenager, six years total. Went there frequently as an adult on NATO work. Worked with Germans quite a bit. Your post is utter bollocks.

DR


I forgot to say: Thanks for that. Thanks to the other posters that said something similar as well.

[Georg]

Guess we can go home now, DR. Georg can't possibly be wrong.


Another great, informative, rich in content and thoughtful post. Who would have expected that?

[Darth Rotor]

You misunderstand me, sorry. My comment you quoted above was towards toyfish who falsely implied that I defend the restriction of freedom of speech we have in Germany. That´s why I posted my opinion on this after the comment.
That rules differ from country to country is interesting. The government limiting speech, or banning it, seems to be where th is topic has drifted to.
The rest of your post: you are wrong. Outlawing porn and outlawing hate speech are both restrictions of free speech. And you are comparing kittens to tigers.
First off, hate speech as free speech is to my way of thinking protected. It also exposes the speaker and acts as a warning. The Holocaust issue that grates on free speech advocates is a dispute about "the official government story" not being challengeable, (and in the process another fool exposed) which thus involves the state.

Porno does not involve the state. Not broadcasting it on TV is not a ban. We are dealing in something similar to the tragedy of the commons when the airwaves, not cable, is used as medium for broadcast for "free" on the People's dime. The FCC regulates. The community decency laws in the US have been upheld. I think you may mistake that for a ban on porn, versus porn in a suitable time and place.

Restricting hate speech works as a ban, and particularly since a lot of it seems to have a political linkage, not to mention dissent.

You understand the difference, yes?
I forgot to say: Thanks for that. Thanks to the other posters that said something similar as well.
A pleasure, mein freund.

DR

[Georg]

That rules differ from country to country is interesting. The government limiting speech, or banning it, seems to be where th is topic has drifted to.


That was my old dispute with Bob, yes.


And you are comparing kittens to tigers.
First off, hate speech as free speech is to my way of thinking protected. It also exposes the speaker and acts as a warning.


And people should not be allowed to masturbate to the videos which make them horny? Isn´t that some sort of strange control behaviour?


The Holocaust issue that grates on free speech advocates is a dispute about "the official government story" not being challengeable, (and in the process another fool exposed) which thus involves the state.


It´s not about the government version not being challengeable, it´s about:

(3) Whoever publicly or in a meeting approves of, denies or renders harmless an act committed under the rule of National Socialism of the type indicated in Section 220a subsection (1), in a manner capable of disturbing the public piece shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine.



That´s not exactly "the official government story not being challengeable", is it?


Porno does not involve the state. Not broadcasting it on TV is not a ban.


And that´s not what we are talking about either, see below.


The community decency laws in the US have been upheld. I think you mistake that for a ban on porn, versus porn in a suitable time and place.

Restricting hate speech is a ban.

You understand the difference, yes?

DR



Bucklew sentenced the man known as Max Hardcore to 3 years and 10 months in federal prison for selling and distributing his messy, sometimes violent videos in Tampa. She also made him forfeit three Web sites, fined him...


He did not show the films in public. He sold them to the people that wanted them. Nobody in the community was harmed by being forced to watch that stuff. You cannot legally obtain it when you live there. How is this different to a ban?


A pleasure, mein freund.

DR

:)

[Bob Blaylock]

I will not defend to the death anyone's right to be a Nazi.
Indeed if that's the best a man can do, I feel it's better he dies.
The only good Nazi is a dead Nazi.
If anyone out there has failed to grasp that simple fact, he must be profoundly stupid or worse.

Replace the word “Nazi” in this statement with any other group that is unpopular in some circles, and the true meaning of your words will become more apparent.

I will not defend to the death anyone's right to be a Jew.
Indeed if that's the best a man can do, I feel it's better he dies.
The only good Jew is a dead Jew.

I will not defend to the death anyone's right to be a Socialist.
Indeed if that's the best a man can do, I feel it's better he dies.
The only good Socialist is a dead Socialist.

I will not defend to the death anyone's right to be a Capitalist.
Indeed if that's the best a man can do, I feel it's better he dies.
The only good Capitalist is a dead Capitalist.

I will not defend to the death anyone's right to be a Scientologist.
Indeed if that's the best a man can do, I feel it's better he dies.
The only good Scientologist is a dead Scientologist.

I will not defend to the death anyone's right to be a Mormon.
Indeed if that's the best a man can do, I feel it's better he dies.
The only good Mormon is a dead Mormon.

I will not defend to the death anyone's right to be a Muslim.
Indeed if that's the best a man can do, I feel it's better he dies.
The only good Muslim is a dead Muslim.

Bob , replace the words in a text-only communication and the meaning may disappear entirely.
Your post is a fine example.

We all draw lines in the moral sands about what we will tolerate.
If you disagree with my opinion of Nazis, that's your business.
My father put his life on the line fighting these people, to the death.
I hope I would too.


At this point, Nazis have no political power anywhere. To be a Nazi, in these times, is simply to be someone who holds a set of beliefs which most people find very disagreeable.

You have, in effect, stated you would not allow such a person to hold such beliefs. You've called for the death of any who hold these beliefs.

Now what group can we all think of, from the mid-twentieth century, that killed large numbers of people simply for holding beliefs with which this group disagreed?

A Nazi, in power to do so, might kill you for what you believe. You, in power to do so, would kill a Nazi for what he believes. How are you different than the Nazi?

[Lonewulf]

A Nazi, in power to do so, might kill you for what you believe. You, in power to do so, would kill a Nazi for what he believes. How are you different than the Nazi?While I'm not a follower of the "kill all Nazis" idea, this argument you make leaves a strong distaste in my mouth.

Your argument seems to be based on a claim that all beliefs are alike. But that is not true. At the ideal of the Nazi beliefs, anyone that doesn't fit the arbitrary pseudo-scientific genetic quota would be wiped out.

While I don't believe in killing people just for their ideas, I would kill a Nazi if I felt that their ideals were coming to fruition, and I would kill someone to protect another person of any religion or race. So there's a borderline that must be crossed, but that borderline is crossed when a Nazi attempts to accomplish what his ideals tell him he should accomplish. So it's not quite a black and white issue for me.

[Darth Rotor]

So it's not quite a black and white issue for me.
But it is for a Nazi, eh? :cool:

Have you met any Nazis lately? Being in Germany, I'd guess you might run into a few of the neo-Nazi crowd.

DR

[mrbaracuda]

Now what group can we all think of, from the mid-twentieth century, that killed large numbers of people simply for holding beliefs with which this group disagreed?

Communists!? :D
Since we have the Nazis covered already.

[Lonewulf]

But it is for a Nazi, eh? :cool:Yes, very much so. Although it seems more red-and-red for the skinheads just looking for a fight to pick today.

Have you met any Nazis lately? Being in Germany, I'd guess you might run into a few of the neo-Nazi crowd.Not really. I have run into a lot of anti-nazi material, though, from random posters that say "support Israel, fight anti-semitism", usually while showing a little girl with a slingshot and a star on her shirt; alternatively, there's also shirts in "punk" stores that say "**** Nazis", and similar material.

But so far, I haven't met a single Neo-Nazi, anywhere. Though to be fair, I don't get out much in general. However, from what I hear, they're very rare here in Heidelberg, although skinheads can be seen in greater number in places such as Berlin; even then, they're rare, and seem to attack pretty much anyone and everyone. They're less of organized as you saw under Hitler and more of a "Hurt Anyone Who's Different Or Tries To Stop Us" crowd; in short, they're just a bunch of punks looking for a fight.

We covered them a bit in our German learning course, under the subject of "Altruismus"; essentially we were learning vocabulary that has to do with altruism, and was namely encouraging us to intervene in these kinds of situations. They seem like pretty rare situations, though. The instructor said, paraphrased (and translated), "just avoid them, no matter what nationality or ethic background you have".

[Bob Blaylock]

While I'm not a follower of the "kill all Nazis" idea, this argument you make leaves a strong distaste in my mouth.

Your argument seems to be based on a claim that all beliefs are alike. But that is not true. At the ideal of the Nazi beliefs, anyone that doesn't fit the arbitrary pseudo-scientific genetic quota would be wiped out.


Yes. They would dictate what people are allowed to believe, and kill those who believe otherwise. So, by his own statements, would Soapy Sam.

Naziism, as practiced in 1930s and 1940s Germany, was a great evil. I very much disagree with the beliefs that now survive today based thereon. But to say that someone should not be allowed to hold those beliefs; and especially to go as far as Soapy Sam has gone, in calling for the death of those who hold such beliefs, is to cross the line into the very same evil that one purports to oppose. I say that Soapy Sam is no better than a Nazi. The same core element of Nazi beliefs that makes them so evil, and so repugnant, is equally found in Soapy Sam's reaction to Naziism.

[Lonewulf]

Yes. They would dictate what people are allowed to believe, and kill those who believe otherwise. So, by his own statements, would Soapy Sam.Nazis go beyond that, and if you think that's the only people they kill (those who do not agree with them), then you'd be very much ignorant of the subject matter.

They killed people based on their genetic value (or lack thereof); belief didn't even have to come into it. You couldn't suddenly "convert" and save yourself; you were killed for what you were, if you were a Jew, Gypsy, or anything else that went beyond the alleged Atlantean (they say "Aryan", but ultimately, it seems to be based on the idea people were descended from the people of Atlantis) ideal.

Someone that believes in such a thing strikes me as a person that is very very dangerous, and liable to do great harm. The only thing that prevents me from agreeing with Soapy Sam is the idea that anyone can change their minds, and possibly refrain from acting on their bigotry. But that's about it.

Naziism, as practiced in 1930s and 1940s Germany, was a great evil.That's very educational. I did not know this fact.

I very much disagree with the beliefs that now survive today based thereon. But to say that someone should not be allowed to hold those beliefs; and especially to go as far as Soapy Sam has gone, in calling for the death of those who hold such beliefs, is to cross the line into the very same evil that one purports to oppose.Killing someone for being of Jewish ancestry (that's blood, not faith, by the way; they did target people purely on their blood relations, not just on their professed faith), or being of several other ancestries (or being homosexual, or being mentally ill), is necessarily equal to killing someone for something that they can very well change? I'm not sure about that, personally. You'd have to do a lot of convincing to get me to see the two as necessarily equal.

Like I said, I don't share Soapy Sam's beliefs. However, I don't see the two as equal, and further, I can sympathize with his beliefs. I certainly would not tolerate a bigot, and I would do whatever I could to prevent them from having any power whatsoever. If I had to kill them to ensure that they didn't harm others, I would do so.

I say that Soapy Sam is no better than a Nazi. The same core element of Nazi beliefs that makes them so evil, and so repugnant, is equally found in Soapy Sam's reaction to Naziism.I'm afraid that such a statement, as noted above, is overly simplistic and seems to be based in ignorance.

[SleuthM]

‘I say that Soapy Sam is no better than a Nazi’ and similar comments:

Does it often happen that threads on JREF end up in such a slugfest? If Soapy Sam said something along these lines can't we just accept that he indicates that his opinion has a strong emotional element? We all have said ‘I kill you’ or threatened with being killed when that was just a figure of speech. Soapy Sam is unlikely ever to meet a Nazi and execute his threat. If someone threatens me with instant murder I usually ask myself ‘What are his priors?’ - how likely is he to do that? The usual probability is near zero and we carry on drinking (or crying into) our beers.

Do threads also often end in a nitpicking exchange between three or four high-posters? Should they get out more?

Good grief! I just noticed the combined number of postings of those I refer to is 30,000 plus. And I have only five! LHMUMS! (A.E. Poe, ca. 1849)

[Lonewulf]

Here is your statement put into perspective:

Kittens and hungry tigers are both felines, therefore, treat them identically.
So porn is a hungry tiger?

I'm sure porn is all about eating pussy, but c'mon now.

[Lonewulf]

Do threads also often end in a nitpicking exchange between three or four high-posters?Yes.

Should they get out more?We all need a hobby.

[SleuthM]

Gosh! This thread has ended, apparently. Was it something I said? (I know, I am taking myself much too seriously) ;)

[Lonewulf]

I think it was the fact that you called it, and no one else wants to admit it. :D

[SleuthM]

'I think it was the fact that you called it, and no one else wants to admit it.'

Did I say something wrong? Lonewulf agrees with me? Surely not! :confused:

[Lonewulf]

Either way, threads often die out. I'm not sure why; I guess posters move onto a new thing.