Call for Europe-Wide Swastika Ban

[Monkyburd]

That being said...should the KKK be allowed to have Headquarters in Harlem and display the KKK flag? Or would that be considered to be 'inciting a riot'. There is a line which one crosses with their speech that cannot be overlooked. It is a fine line as well.

Definately a good point. The Nazi symbol (The black swastika surrounded by red with an eagle on top) is basically saying,"We hate all jews, gays, blacks, ect. ect." It is a very fine line.

[Stellar]

But if they step outside of the law one micron...slam 'em up against the legal wall!

Damn straight.

That being said...should the KKK be allowed to have Headquarters in Harlem and display the KKK flag? Or would that be considered to be 'inciting a riot'. There is a line which one crosses with their speech that cannot be overlooked. It is a fine line as well.

I really couldnt care less. Either ban them all, or let them all exist. A person who's grandmother or somethign was killed by the church for "witchcraft" might find the cross equally dispicable.

[Athenian]

That being said...should the KKK be allowed to have Headquarters in Harlem and display the KKK flag? Or would that be considered to be 'inciting a riot'. There is a line which one crosses with their speech that cannot be overlooked. It is a fine line as well.

Definately a good point. The Nazi symbol (The black swastika surrounded by red with an eagle on top) is basically saying,"We hate all jews, gays, blacks, ect. ect." It is a very fine line.

453182[/snapback]

The KKK are too violent and ignorant, Their freedom of speech should be very limited... The Nazis/Neo-Nazis seem to be more open minded though... They should be allowed more priveladges than hate groups like the KKK.

Remember, Just because you believe a certain race is inferior to yours... Does not mean you have to hate that certain race and kill them off!

Edited January 17, 2005 by Athenian

[Fluffybunny]

The KKK are too violent and ignorant, Their freedom of speech should be very limited... The Nazis/Neo-Nazis seem to be more open minded though... They should be allowed more priveladges than hate groups like the KKK.

And who gets to choose? And what happens when your speech is deemed ignorant?

Freedom of speech is a basic freedom, and it cuts both ways. Sometimes we like it when we get to say what we want, and sometime we hate it what others say things we do not like, but the split second someone starts to decide who gets to have the freedom to speak their mind you have fascism.

[+joc]

The KKK are too violent and ignorant, Their freedom of speech should be very limited... The Nazis/Neo-Nazis seem to be more open minded though... They should be allowed more priveladges than hate groups like the KKK.

And who gets to choose? And what happens when your speech is deemed ignorant?

Freedom of speech is a basic freedom, and it cuts both ways. Sometimes we like it when we get to say what we want, and sometime we hate it what others say things we do not like, but the split second someone starts to decide who gets to have the freedom to speak their mind you have fascism.

Well said.

[Hotoke]

as long as hammer and sickle can continue to exist it is fine with me

[SilverCougar]

It's all good and fine till someone kills another, again, based off of some biggitory reason....

[Stellar]

The KKK are too violent and ignorant, Their freedom of speech should be very limited... The Nazis/Neo-Nazis seem to be more open minded though... They should be allowed more priveladges than hate groups like the KKK.

And who gets to choose? And what happens when your speech is deemed ignorant?

Freedom of speech is a basic freedom, and it cuts both ways. Sometimes we like it when we get to say what we want, and sometime we hate it what others say things we do not like, but the split second someone starts to decide who gets to have the freedom to speak their mind you have fascism.

453214[/snapback]

Thats similar to what I was trying to point out.

With such a serious desire to avoid another reoccurance of WW2 and to punish those responsible for it, you might just be repeating history.

[Poppycat]

Society as a whole does tend to determine what is or is not acceptable to speak about in public. I don't think we need a specific statute to 'ban' things current society dislikes. People should be free to discuss what they like and if they have any sense they will do it behind closed doors where they are not offending others. They'll do that if its illegal anyway. After all, 30 years ago it wouldn't have been acceptable to be gay in the small town where I was brought up - or even talk about being gay in the pub. Now its perfectly acceptable. However laws are difficult to repeal and there are still inequalities in the eyes of the law between gay and straight people. Perhaps in 30 years time the swastika will be an acceptable symbol again? What is the point in wasting parliamentary time debating and implementing such a law when there are perfectly adequate laws to prevent such a symbol being incorrectly used and displayed anyway?

[Talon]

Can they explain what they mean by ban?

I mean is it just a ban on parties and individuals etc having it, or are they talkimg about going so far as to have in movies and video games the a cross being worn by Nazis instead... cause the fist parties okay, but the second is rewritting history and stupid. We learn from the past, not try and pretend it didn't happen.