nationalism is the first half of "nazi"

http://www.wisegeek.com/is-it-really-illegal-to-display-the-swastika-symbol-in-germany.htm

The answer to this question largely depends on the intended use of the swastika symbol. As a matter of public law, the post-war German law codes prohibit the display of a swastika in any form or fashion, even if used satirically or as part of an anti-Nazi political statement.

mysteryman wrote:

Much as I hate to say it, flaja is right...to a degree.
If Grmany truly respected the right to free speech,the swastika and other symbols of Naziism would not be illegal.
While I understand and share the Germans revulsion to the swastika, to me it seems as if the German govt doesnt trust its own people to know how evil that period was and to know on there on not to try to display the swastika.

http://www.wisegeek.com/is-it-really-illegal-to-display-the-swastika-symbol-in-germany.htm

Also the german govt banned anyone owning a copy of "Mein Kampf".
So, you could say that some forms of free speech are banned in Germany.

That's so baloney! Tell me MM, why is it then considered a hate crime
and illegal in the United States if you have a noose on public display?

As far as I know, its not illegal to display a noose in the US.
Stupid and racist, yes. Illegal, no.


Why is the distribution of neo-nazi paraphernelia prohibited in the US? Why are neo-nazi internet sites banned in the US?

Neither of these are illegal nor are they prohibited.
You need to do a little more Homework on that score.



Could it be that they're all considered part of a hate crime? It could,
coudn't it, if you think long and hard about it, no?

It might be racist, but in and of themselves those actions are not considered hate crimes.
It is how people react to and use those images that can be considered criminal.


As for flaja: go back to school and pay attention to your teachers,
and I mean really attention. The rubbish you're bubbling around here,
isn't get you anywhere.

mysteryman wrote:

http://www.wisegeek.com/is-it-really-illegal-to-display-the-swastika-symbol-in-germany.htm

Have to correct what your link says here:

Quote:

The answer to this question largely depends on the intended use of the swastika symbol. As a matter of public law, the post-war German law codes prohibit the display of a swastika in any form or fashion, even if used satirically or as part of an anti-Nazi political statement.

It is allowed to display a swastika if used satirically. It is legal to display it as part of an anti-Nazi political statement.

Too much misinformation out there, really....

Well MM, people do get arrested for displaying a noose, perhaps not in
Kentucky but other places it is considered a felony

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_7754563


Yes, neo-nazi sites are not banned yet in the US - that was wishful
thinking on my part, sorry to say.

Massaglia faces a charge of harassment, a Class 1 misdemeanor punishable by six to 18 months in jail. The charge was bumped from a Class 3 to a Class 1 misdemeanor because the harassment was race-related.

Since you live there, I will take the word of you and Walter on that matter.
I was only going by some of the websites I looked up and the information I was given when I was stationed in Germany during the 1980's.
If I was wrong I apologize.

flaja wrote:

If Germans were truly a democratic people something like the Reichstag Fire Decree would have been impossible.

Well, you may have missed that: between 1933 and the founding of the Federal Repulic was the Nazi regimes and WWII.

Our Basic Law came into effect in 1949.

Tell me MM, why is it then considered a hate crime
and illegal in the United States if you have a noose on public display?

Why is the distribution of neo-nazi paraphernelia prohibited in the US? Why are neo-nazi internet sites banned in the US?

Well MM, people do get arrested for displaying a noose, perhaps not in
Kentucky but other places it is considered a felony

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_7754563

"Massaglia faces a charge of harassment, a Class 1 misdemeanor punishable by six to 18 months in jail. The charge was bumped from a Class 3 to a Class 1 misdemeanor because the harassment was race-related."

In other words you start your mouth before you start your brain.

Your basic law still denies a right to freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

flaja wrote:

Your basic law still denies a right to freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

No.

But we don't have "embedded journalists".

No.You can't. Like in most other European countries.

So you think that it's okay to act against the constitution of a country inside that country. (Not against the US constitution in or outside the USA by US-citizens or anyone else, of course.)

Walter Hinteler wrote:

No.You can't. Like in most other European countries.

You have documentation for most other European countries?

Quote:

So you think that it's okay to act against the constitution of a country inside that country. (Not against the US constitution in or outside the USA by US-citizens or anyone else, of course.)

That's not the issue. The ability of Germans to enjoy freedom of speech and freedom of the press is the issue. The fact that Germans do not trust themselves to have total freedom in this regard shows how unfit they are for such freedom.

In what will surely become known as the Bong Hits For Jesus decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled 5-4 that high school students do not have the right to free speech when it can be interpreted as advocating drug use.

Irrespective of its US provenance, we recognise that "the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." (Schenck v. United States, 3 March, 1919). Thus shouting fire in a crowded cinema when there is no fire, and you know it, is wrong. We accept this limit on free speech, therefore the principle is conceded.

You have documentation for most other European countries?

That's not the issue. The ability of Germans to enjoy freedom of speech and freedom of the press is the issue. The fact that Germans do not trust themselves to have total freedom in this regard shows how unfit they are for such freedom.

flaja wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:

No.You can't. Like in most other European countries.

You have documentation for most other European countries?

Quote:

So you think that it's okay to act against the constitution of a country inside that country. (Not against the US constitution in or outside the USA by US-citizens or anyone else, of course.)

That's not the issue. The ability of Germans to enjoy freedom of speech and freedom of the press is the issue. The fact that Germans do not trust themselves to have total freedom in this regard shows how unfit they are for such freedom.

flaja,
You do realize that there are limits on free speech in the US, dont you?

Here are some examples...

http://www.homepagedaily.com/Pages/article1392-us-supreme-court-limits-free-speech1.aspx

Irrespective of its US provenance, we recognise that "the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." (Schenck v. United States, 3 March, 1919). Thus shouting fire in a crowded cinema when there is no fire, and you know it, is wrong. We accept this limit on free speech, therefore the principle is conceded.