This banner is against the law in Germany
The German government said on Monday a law penalizing people for displaying Nazi symbols might need to be changed after a court fined a man for selling anti-Nazi T-shirts and badges bearing swastikas.
The Nazi emblem appeared on the items in a circle with a large red line through it.
But a state court in the southwestern city of Stuttgart ruled on Friday it still violated German law because it risked making the hooked cross acceptable again.
Justice Minister Brigitte Zypries questioned the logic of the decision in the Maerkische Allgemeine newspaper on Monday, saying that if the ruling was confirmed by a higher court, then the law itself was flawed.
Under German law, performing a Hitler salute, wearing Nazi uniforms or displaying the swastika can carry a penalty of up to three years in prison.
Many nations understand the history behind the original laws — having suffered Nazi oppression. I wonder what the average American thinks about this controversy.
I understand the reason behind Germany’s laws on this issue, howeer there are various problems with it. In part the swastica is a symbol that the was not made-up by the Nazi’s and was used in other non harmful ways. It is a sacred symbol in some of the world’s religions, and by the way the laws in Germany are written and enforced, those relgions often are unable to practice, or fully practice their faith due to the actions of memebrs of a group of people who used that symbol.
Here we have a case of an “ant-nazi” ussing it.
Many questions are raised by this, and I doubt the answers are clear.
In the US the circumstance are different due to our understandings and laws, and thus we are unable to truly look upon this in the same way as those of Europe.
Under our system the prohabition of a symbol is harder to accept and understand. As there are still many who embrace the flag of the Confederate States of America, even after so much time has passed since they failed to break away from the Union. Where in Germany the symbol of a party has been forbin, even in its other uses.
From my experinces I would say that from their culture, perhabs the symbols should be forbiden when used to represent for or against that political party and/or the acts done under that party, but exceptions should be made in various other cases, e.g use in worship where the symbols have meanings unreleated to the Nazi use of them. However as it appears some Germans are upset that anti-nazi use is seen incorrect, I know I do not know enough of their culture at this point in time, and must learn more about who Germany is today and the needs of Germans, and other peoples of the world
I don’t think the average American thinks about it at all.
The law makes sense for probably two generations. Those that were alive during Nazi rule and their children. It will become an historical artifact for following German generations. That will be their decision. Humans tend to hold to the notion of permanency during their lifetime. It’s an illusion.
In order to understand those laws better, one should go to places like Oswiecim (Auschwitz), Treblinka, Majdanek. Anyone that thinks they are too old or they don’t make sense anymore should go there and think again, and again, and again ….
#5 Art, that law also prohibits using the swastika in a historical context, viz model kits of WW2 German aircraft. It can’t be shown in the box art, and cannot be included as part of the decal sheets.
Does the prohibition of all such displays or expressions prevent neo-nazism or does it serve to help bury the horror of what the swastika came to represent?
#6. Terry, I was mainly replying to this statement:
The law makes sense for probably two generations.
Details of this law are debatable, just like details of any other law, however idea itself (to me) is not.
The law still makes sense. Especially with the (not so) recent resurgence of neo nazis. They still use those symbols actively.
I agree with Gig in #2, but I wonder if perhaps they should. Its an interesting problem.
Art’s point in #5 is well taken…
But honestly, has censoring something ever made it go away? The children of Nazi Germany have suffered humiliation and shame in a way few other national populations can imagine. So only they can answer this.
If you are asking Americans, however, this one thinks its time to let Germany demonstrate they can stand up like adults and handle the difficulty and responsibility that comes with free speech.
I think that they can.
Let’s put speculation aside for a brief moment, just to take a look at the facts: There’s one single court (not a general law) in a south-west federal state of Germany (Baden-Wurtemberg) penalizing the sale of anti-nazi symbols. In simple words: a court in a right-wing controlled state (as Baden-Wurtemberg is for a long time) is going against left-wing activists. That’s it. The whole thing is not about history, not at all.
Two comments:
FNBerger is right. Let’s not make this decision more than it is. (If the higher court upholds the decision then perhaps that aspect can be revisited, but we can be patient and see if that happens).
On the historical view: I believe there is a very real and well-founded fear that the lessons of the past will be forgotten, and that the holocaust will recur. There is plenty of food for that fear in the racist and xenophobic comments across Europe as the EU expands. There is a debate here in Ireland again about whether to allow citizens from the new EU states into the country freely. Some of the debate is about economics, much of it is racism and xeonphobia.
Given that background, it is no harm at all to have a constant reminder of the evil of racism and xenophobia taken to the extreme, as it was in Nazi Germany. Maybe that reminder will keep the lessons of the 1930’s and -40’s at the front of our minds, and remind us that we cannot afford to let extreme nationalist or isolationist policies take hold.
So I’d say this is not about free speech. It is much more fundamental and important.
Brian.
#11 – So I’d say this is not about free speech. It is much more fundamental and important.
Comment by Brian — 10/3/2006 @ 1:28 pm
I appreciate everything you said and your cool headed appraisal of the situation commands respect. But I’m confused about something. Are you implying that there is something much more fundamental and important than free speech?
The United States has a few problems. In fact, we almost corner the market on imperfection. There are many valid points that can be made that we suck. Our educational standards are weak. Our executive branch is corrupt, and our legislative branch not too far behind. Our people are slaves to consumerism and corporations are the real shadow government that rules our country…
But we have the First Amendment. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Despite the surplus of commas, it’s truly the one perfect sentence that makes the Constitution beautiful and the nation great. It’s the one unique law that is supreme and absolute and not replicated in any other country.
If America is a beacon of light to anyone in the world, the First is the filiment. Free speech is challenging and laden with risk, but if I nation can accept the responsibility for it, it will be great.
#12
And that’s the point, the USA has a First Amendment that makes freedom of speech mandatory.
Unfortunately, the rest of the world doesn’t have one and even though “civilized” countries may boast of their freedom of speech, the reality is that the goverments can still silence anyone they want just because they can.
IMO, let the germans decided wether allow or now allow that symbol to roam freely.
Germany needs to drop all bans like this. Yes that means a Nazi party(ies) in the Bundestag but these things need to be in the open. They flourish in secret.
I’d say the court got it right. Do you realy want them acting as thought police? Even better would be to throw out the law entirely. Plus that’s not an anti-Nazi shirt. It’s an anti-Hindu shirt. An anti-Nazi shir would be rotated 45 degrees.
#15
Yea… But you and I both know that damn Hindus are up to no good.
I think it’s nothing more than a violation of free speech. Regardless of how repulsive a philosophy is, it is wrong to ban someone for merely expressing vocal support for it. For those who believe that failure to ban hate speech results in the proliferation of racism and/or other oppressive ideologies, I ask them to consider how much power hate groups have in America (a country in which their actions are legal, so long as they do not participate in criminal actions). In America, hate groups are on the absolute fringes of society and the thought of a member of one of such groups ever attaining political office is a near impossibility. In Germany, like many other European countries in which hate speech is illegal, however, an openly racist party with Nazi sympathies (the NDP) recieves enough of the popular vote to hold political seats. This, as with the increasing support of Britian’s BNP, should really make those in favor of laws restricting hate speech wonder if such laws are having any real effect.
Free speech is a human right, and denying it is a slippery slope – it allows practically any view considered unpopular by the government to be declared criminal.
The Nazi symbol law should remain in effect because for the vast majority, the symbol incurs certain feelings and attitudes which are hateful toward a group of people. You cannot deny this. Words create. For instance, if we were eating at a fine restuarant and thoroughly enjoying the meal and wine, and all of a sudden, I bellowed out just one word: DIARRHEA! Wouldn’t that destroy your dinner even though none were actually present? Words and symbols are used to communicate. Some words and symbols have negative connotations that should not be used.
#12:
Yes, I am suggesting there are things more important than free speech.
Free speech is a concept our society values, and values highly. I agree with that. Free speech is important for the proper functioning of a democracy. The electorate cannot make informed decisions if the government or courts control or curtail debate and communication.
Our society also values life. We will take extraordinary measures to protect people’s lives, and save the lives of people injured. At the same time we will put our emergency services personnel our soldiers lives at risk. We will actively kill people who are a significant threat to our society, so there are things we value above individual lives.
Our society also values liberty. As far as possible people will be left free to travel, to meet with whomever they wish, and have other liberties. At the same time we will lock up people who break our laws. We will exclude, or even deport, people who cross our borders without permission. So there are things we value above liberty.
Is there nothing we value above free speech? I think it is important to remember and abhor the holocaust. Having some taboo symbols helps us to do that. I think that is a small, acceptable, restriction on free speech in favor of another important value.
So yes, I think this is more important and fundamental than free speech.
Brian.
Are you implying that there is something much more fundamental and important than free speech?
I’m not going to imply, I can tell you, yes! and the most fundamental of them all is basic right to live. You take this one away and you take them all away – that’s what Nazis did ten times over … this law has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
Let’s imagine something for a second – take 9/11 multiply it by many 1000’s, add to it torture, death by starvation, rape, gas chambers, pseudo-medical experiments, etc. then place swastikas on the arms of those that did it and tell me what laws are appropriate, what treatment should receive those that try to follow the footsteps of those that did it, what treatment should receive those that are only being suspected of “something” (without any proof) …. I guess I don’t have imagine such horrific scenario, I can just look around, look at the laws this government is passing now… and the fact that man in charge still has over 40% (and rising) approval rating tells me more than I ever wanted to know.
Freedom of speech is not and has never been absolute. As the old case about “the right to yell fire in a crowded theater” shows, our obligation to society is stronger then our right to voice potential injury. Nor may we encourage the commission of a crime. The same applies to libel and slander. We restrict people’s right to ruin another’s reputation. So contrary to popular belief, we only have some freedom of speech
Maybe with America’s much less restrictive freedom of speech, we find restrictions on thought un-comforting, I know I do. Yet, if we look at the history behind this restriction, it does make a lot of sense. When will a sufficient period of time have gone by? I don’t know, but obviously there are still wounds.
The one thing I do hope for is that the memory of what happened during the Nazi’s reign of terror never leave us. Too many have suffered far too much for their lives to be lost in vain.
>the symbol incurs certain feelings and attitudes which are hateful >toward a group of people.
So I guess you would ban anything that fits that criteria? Maybe we should fine John Dvorak for some of his posts about Islam? Or how about people that make anti-Christian statements?
Anyone know the history of this law? My guess is that this law isn’t really German but was imposed by the US and others who were worried about a return of the Party.
#22:
Why do you insist on absolutes? The world is not simple.
The commandments include ‘Thou shalt not kill’, but we still train and maintain armies and armed police forces. Why? Because, distasteful as it may be, sometimes killing is for the good of our society.
The US constitution says free speech is to be protected. Is there no room for exceptions here, when we can accept exceptions to the bible’s commandments?
There is a social value in having taboos. You can tell a lot about a society by the taboos it keeps. A society that has taboos about childhood sex, for example, is a society that wants to protect children from predators. A society that has taboos about symbols associated with xenocide wants to remember and avoid the mistakes of the past.
If you remove the taboo, you make the associated behaviour easier. In the one case, most of the western world has laws banning sexual images of children. In the other case Germany has laws banning images associated with the holocaust. In both cases the goal is the same: Retain the taboo. Make it clear, through law, that the associated behaviour is unacceptable.
There is a spectrum here, without absolutes. Are comments about Islam, such as the ones you say John made, so abhorrent to our society that they should be banned outright? Is child sex so abhorrent to our society that it’s images should be banned outright? Is the holocaust so abhorrent to our society that it’s symbols should be banned outright?
Your choice. Pick where you live and vote for people who agree with you. The Germans have decided. I’ve made my views clear.
Brian.
fuckin skint heads