EU, Swastika and free speech

German lawmakers are proposing an all EU ban on the swastika in light of Harry's costume fiasco. Of course, to do so will trample all over freedom of speech. Hopefully EU citizens will wisely urge their politicians to shoot down this legislation.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2005/01/german-lawmakers-call-for-eu-ban-on.php

 

Freedom of speech should mean any kind, no matter how stupid some of it gets.

 

Germany already such a ban in place. Given anit-semitic attacks have not gone away since the ban was put into place; European wide ban would have the same effect. Allow the people and politicians the false sense of security they have done the right thing, but effectively doing nothing.

 

Well, i think that we should ban the swastika worldwide because before hitler it was an innoculous drawing of the sun. the nazis nowadays have different symbols anyways, so why not.
Oh, about the costume, does anyone else out there think that it was an obscure 'sex pistols' reference?

 

The swastika is a Hindu symbol. This is not just a matter of protecting free speach, it's also a matter of protecting freedom of religion.

The Holocaust was terrible, and as a Jew, I've met many survivers at my synogage. So it's not as if I'm supporting hatred. But the fact is that the symbol is not hateful: the Nazis were hateful.

The Prince Harry thing is silly. The fact is that Prince Harry most likely did it as a form of rebellion. (Those damn rebellous 20 year olds) He did it to get the media attention he got. People don't dress up as Nazis because they're just trying to find a cool costume. They do it because it gets them attention. But the fact is that Prince Harry's just a jerk, he's royalty's version of Jack Osbourne, and I don't think you should ban a symbol because he does something stupid like that.

 

well said.

 

The symbol shouldn't be banned. I'm Jewish myself, by birth, and have had much of my family die in the holocaust. They symbol is not the cause of the hate, the people are. The symbol should be left, but more strict measures should be taken by the entire EU to fight anti-semitism.

 

France and Germany already have bans on swastikas and nazi paraphrenalia. In addition, it's illegal in Germany to give a one-arm "Hitler salute."

You're absolutely right that this is an infringement on freedom of speech. But Europe has always been one step behind the United States in that area.

 

It was originally a Masonic symbol that was later altered by the Germans and used to symbolize the Nazi Party.

 

It shouldn't be banned, regardless of the connotations, as that would just strengthen censorship.

 

PR, how on earth can you say its a masonic symbol?

its origins are that of hindu and ancient greek. I believe the oldest evidence of the sign dates back to 1000 BC from ancient greece..

 

Well, the German Swastika is backwards. the hindu one (it is hindu, the word swastika comes from sanskrit, it means the source of all things good or something) goes the other way.
Swastikas creep up everywhere, the oldest christian chuch in the world (located in ethiopia of all places) has swastikas all over the windows.
I think that this entire debate is kinda pointless anymore. Nazis now adays don't use swastikas, they have a too negative connotation. They don't even call themselves nazis fer chrissakes.
You aren't going to stop anti-semitism by banning the swastika, you might as well try to get rid of the jews by banning the star of david. All it is is a symbol, one that used to be a good one, but now has negative connotations. We shouldn't let the Nazis own the swastika, we should take it back, goddamned nazis don't deserve any symbols, let alone one that even I can draw.

 

At least in Europe black people were allowed to sit wherever they wanted in the bus in the fifties and sixties.

If symbols of any outlook on life would be banned, we should ban them all. But indeed, rather not. So no ban on swastikas.

 

Isn't it a hateful symbol when worn on a red arm band, in a white circle?
Most of the time, the intentions behind it are hateful. You can blame, the Nazi's, neo nazi's, and other hate groups for that. By wearing the symbol, it shows disrespect to the people that were oppressed by that symbol at one time.

90% of rednecks in south carolina don't fly the rebel flag to mourn the civil war. I think if it is a symbol used with malicious connotations, then it should be banned. Freedom of speech or not, it offends people, and motivates hate crimes.

 

Ugh, do we really want to live in a society where we are banning symbols and crap like that? What would be next? Banning certain words? Thoughts?

 

Well, you don't have the right not to be offended, it's no where in the constitution. I however, have the right to offend. Thats excatly the way it should be.

 

Just remember all that, when you see the KKK, and NEO-Nazis marching down your street. Also remember that when someone insults your race, religion, or anything your associated with. Its their right.

IMO there is a line, and abuse of this right should lead to imprisonment/community service. Its your right to speak your mind, but when someone may be hurt by you using this right, you are in the wrong. Its your right to bear arms, but you can't go in your back yard and fire a few rounds, without the police showing up.

 

Your post may have offended any KKK members or nazis who happen to visit this forum. Should you be imprisoned?

When I voice opposition to the war in Iraq, a worried mother of a soldier might be emotionally hurt. Should I be imprisoned?

When pro-lifers protest in front of abortion clinics, pregnant teenagers might be emotionally hurt. Should they be imprisoned?

When a journalist uncovers a major scandal, corrupt politicians might be politically hurt. Should the journalist be imprisoned?

My point is that "hurting" someone is NOT in itself a valid reason to deny someone free speech. Now, if you're slandering someone then it's a different story. But the possibility of inflicting emotional "hurt" is so subjective that it must never be the standard for free speech.

 

The yardstick I usually use is a quote from (I believe) Olive Wendell Holmes, as best as I can remember it: "The right a man has to swing his fist ends at the other mans nose."

Freedom of speech is not an absolute. When speech is transformed into what can reasonable considered threats, it is no longer is a free speech issue.

If the man swinging his fist has little chance of meeting another man's nose then he is free to swing them. Just as the person excerising his right to speech don't cross the boundry into threats (or slander) he is free to make use of his rights. Regardless how idiotic his opinions are.

 

Thank you, that is what I was trying to get at. You seem to have found the words for me.