That’s a non sequitur.
Murder is illegal regardless of one’s skin color.
And as stated, groups “like the KKK” are not “protected” - it’s just that they, as citizens, have their right to freedom of speech.
Cran - I don’t live under a rock, I live in the state next to where you grew up. I, too, grew up knowing some KKK members. So?
At least here, the KKK amounts to some publicity at Christmas when they try to put a cross up on Fountain Square. That’s the extent of their “influence”.
There are a few fringe people that give them “creedance” - most know they are ignorant, and if you don’t give them attention, they go away. There honestly hasn’t been ANY crime pinned on them in years, here.
As to the swastika - it was also a symbol of the ancient Christian church. One of the Catholic churches here that was built around 1900 has tile inlaid swastikas around every pillar in the building.
Missy
Child molestation, drug abuse, battery, burning churches…none of that is a crime, is it? My life was threatened…hmm…they’re not taken seriously though. I should have said “Thank you”, because they’re not to be taken seriously, shouldn’t I?
Have you reported any of these allegations to the proper authorities?
All those things are crimes.
Actually, I have. The time I was threatened personally, I was underage and at work. I told my bosses, and they replied “Well, if you got shot, the cops could be here in five minutes”. In not so many words, I was told if I was afraid to quit work.
I did.
I’m not sure that telling your boss could be considered a “proper authority”. If you were underage, why not tell your parents? Why not report ALL of the allegations to the police?
I don’t have links immediately to hand, but I recall newspaper articles to the effect that
the sale of nazi memorabilia in Germany is illegal, which certainly prevents neo-nazis from
collecting it, but also prevents people with historical or academic interest from purchasing
it.
It was already pointed out that ‘Mein Kampf’ is illegal to sell in Germany, and as a primary source of the thinking of the leader of the Nazi movement, it is of invaluable historical and sociological interest.
I also recall a newspaper article describing a book which was -about- neonazis and their
revionist history, from a sociological ‘why are some people like this?’ point of view. Because
the book described the goals of the revionists, it mentioned -their- disbelief in the holocaust.
This description of people who deny the holocaust, was deemed to violate no-denying-the-holocaust law.
I know you said in another post that works of scholarship and art are exempt from the law, but I’m not sure what that means. Who defines those terms? Is it only ‘scholarship’ if it comes from a fully tenured professor at a federally approved university?
I’d love to cite sources, but somehow the phrase ‘nazi germany’ appears in a lot of contexts near things like ‘free speech’, ‘censorship’, ‘law’, ‘illegal’, etc., to the extent that it’s essentially impossible to search on (except, of course, by thorough manual review of the articles.)
Cran - those things are crimes, and are done by criminals. Whether they were members of the KKK or the Black Panthers (I’m trying to think of a group that is diametricly opposite of the KKK) is irrelevant.
These things were done by criminals that may have been members of the KKK - or not. It doesn’t give merit to the voicings of the KKK.
It’s kinda an apple / orange thing.
Missy
Where does this “telling other countries” come from? It was a proposal before the European council of ministers, and was dropped when it became clear that there would be insufficient support.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4294907.stm
Here is an interesting bit from the bbc article regarding freedom of speech:
Danish Justice Minister Lene Espersen told reporters that ministers had agreed to resume talks on the commission’s plans to make public incitement to racist violence or hatred punishable with minimum two-year jail terms across the EU.
If it happened today, I most certainly would. At sixteen or seventeen, though, I just didn’t think to. My bosses seemed like the route I should go.
Lots been said already, hope I don’t repeat too much.
It seems like to be there is a line to be drawn somewhere between the thought and the act. I can think about something and talk about something all I like, but if I take action on that something and that something is illegal, then I’m going to have problems. Banning a symbol only goes so far… there will still be people who will rally together, even if it has to be in secret, for such a cause, no matter how awful a cause it is. There have always been people like that who will believe such garbage (such as the holucaust never happend), who truly believe in destructive, hateful things. It’s sad, but what can you do? Ban certain things, but then how far will you go with that? -We banned this, oooh, but this here seems really bad to, perhaps we should ban it to be “fair” and “safe”.- There has to be a line somewhere, where do you draw that line and how do you keep it from moving in a direction that it wasn’t orginally intended to?
American thinking (well, supposedly) is to error on the side of freedom. You worry about people going up and down the street attacking people who don’t rally to their cause. Isn’t attacking people already illegal? Isn’t murder illegal? Isn’t genicide illegal? I’m just an American who’s never set foot in Europe, so perhaps I’m missing something, but it seems to me that, while highly offensive, hate songs and swatikas don’t actually physically hurt someone, but the moment it steps up to things like arson, assault, murder etc. you squash the offenders and make it clear that while you can choose to think such awful things (like the holucaust never happening, Hitler being some wonderful chap, etc.) if you choose to act on it by harming others (which is illegal) then you will face severe punishment. Guess I don’t get it.
(But then I don’t get the hate crimes laws either. Aren’t all crimes hateful? Does one kill another and burn their home down because of love? What happend to the 14th ammendment of equal protection under the law? When a white person kills a black person it can be treated with harsher penalites than if a black person kills another black person or a white person kills another white person. Doesn’t that make these folks unequal under the law? Aren’t all such crimes hateful and do they not deserve equal consideration under the law? sigh There’s a lot of things in this world I don’t get though…)
The road to hell is pathed with good intentions…
Sara
I hope this is taken kindly, Sara…I always mean to read your posts, but I never can get all the way through them. Your paragraphs are entirely too huge for me. 
Freedom of speech is, to me, an “essential liberty”.
Ah, the MTV generation… 
Maybe not physically. My uncle, jewish and now gone, spent a few years in a German concentration camp as a teenager. The sight of people wearing nazi paraphernalia upset him to no end, he wouldn’t sleep for days.
he did have a collection of WW2 memorabilia which he used to show people what went on, what was part of daily life under Nazi occupation, he left it to a historical museum where it is on exhibition a a reminder.
Cran: You should really get through her post. Well worth it.
Tom
I’m not that old.
Sara - I have to say I agree with you…
I kill someone. I get the death penalty. I kill someone, I’m white, and they were African-American, and I was overheard saying something about their race. I get, what, 2 death penalties??? 
I beat someone up. I get sent to prison for XX years. I beat someone, same scenerio as above, I get sent to prison for XX plus 20 years???
Other than true crimes of “passion” - I just don’t get the hate crime laws, the innocent by reason of insanity laws, or any of the other “special” consideration laws. A crime is a crime, and should be punished as such.
And, yeah, I know this is way off topic from the original post…
So - getting back to banning symbols, what ABOUT the Confederate Flag?
Missy
The ban on the production, distribution, import, and public display of Nazi symbols in Germany does not apply when the symbol is used “in civic education, in the defense against anti-constitutional activities, in art or [social] science, for purposes of research or teaching, for purposes or reporting on current or historical events, or for similar purposes.” (translated from the German Criminal Code.)
There was theater production some years ago during which passages of Mein Kampf were read, contrasting the awful and insanely badly written contents of the book with the historical reality in everybody’s minds.
I also recall a newspaper article describing a book which was -about- neonazis and their
revionist history, from a sociological ‘why are some people like this?’ point of view. Because
the book described the goals of the revionists, it mentioned -their- disbelief in the holocaust.
This description of people who deny the holocaust, was deemed to violate no-denying-the-holocaust law.I know you said in another post that works of scholarship and art are exempt from the law, but I’m not sure what that means. Who defines those terms? Is it only ‘scholarship’ if it comes from a fully tenured professor at a federally approved university?
Next time don’t start running off at the mouth about “Germany’s
law in particular has been enforced in such a way as to make it difficult to seriously examine the history and especially historical artifacts of the Nazi era” if you haven’t bothered to find out what the law actually says and how it is enforced. This is a touchy subject in more ways than one.