For anyone talking about the freedom of speech here, you should know that nazi symbols are also prohibited in Germany. So basically what's happening here, is russian invasion and it's symbols ("Z") are being equated to nazi.
This might be difficult for Americans to understand, but the freedom of speech has certain lines that cannot be crossed in Europe, and it's mostly about clearly hateful symbols and/or words. You just can't put a swastika on your sleeve and expect no repercussions in Germany, like it or not.
I think a lot of people, myself included, think that Germany often goes overboard when it comes to censoring things. While I totally understand why they do this, I sense they have an incredibly high false-positive rate and people rightfully fear that the system can be abused.
Edit: This is in response to this quote "For anyone talking about the freedom of speech here..." and not a commentary about this specific instance.
I think a lot of people, myself included, do not think that Germany often goes overboard when it comes to censoring things.
From my limited time in Germany, and from my few German friends, I do not believe there is a "high false-positive rate" and they do not "rightfully fear that the system can be abused".
Any system can be abused, but they are not in "fear" of that. They generally support the idea that Nazi ideals need to be curtailed given the atrocities committed to millions of people.
Obviously, and as indicated, this is my very small circle of acquaintances. Hardly a national poll.
They've literally raided someone's home because he called a politician a dick. Raided his home, took all his devices and whatnot. It's completely out of control.
Once you create a list of things that can and cannot be said you have that list on hand. You might have the best intentions about what's on that list but it's better to not have that list at all because it's completely subjective what should and should not be on that list.
> Any system can be abused, but they are not in "fear" of that. They generally support the idea that Nazi ideals need to be curtailed given the atrocities committed to millions of people.
Also, I think many people, Americans in particular, overestimate the ability of "market systems" (i.e. "the marketplace of ideas) to self-regulate or the desirability of the results of that self-regulation.
It's one thing to let Nazis march down the street in Illinois, where they are a small group of pariahs with no hope of power; it's quite another to let them march down a street in a place where they've had power and used it to bad ends (and can be assumed to have significant residual support).
Even more, those laws were enacted when Nazis being celebrated for marching down the streets was a recent memory. A strong statement "we have a new constitution, you aren't allowed to show support for Nazis or organizations working against the constitution" was perfectly reasonable at the time.
As a point of order, I may be lumping all German national censorship into the same bucket. When I perceive that Germany goes overboard with censorship, I mean things like banning Command and Conquer because it 'glorifies war' and then allowing it to be sold once the publisher changed some file assets so the fictional characters were cyborgs instead of people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_%26_Conquer:_Generals#...
While this isn't a specific case of censoring something glorifying or endorsing Nazism directly, they think that their own citizens cannot see such material out of fear that it will inspire people to become militaristic. While the goal of being anti-war and anti-nazi is noble and worthwhile, a lot of things get swept up in the effort to curtail as much of it as possible.
Note that the ban was for sales to minors (under the age of 18) not to all citizens. It also disallowed advertisement, of course, so probably there was a noticeable impact on sales. It probably didn't stop teenagers from getting the game anyhow as piracy was rampant those days and being "on the index" made it extra attractive to many.
The situation has improved a lot these days after an amendment in 2003. There is an industry board (USK) giving age recommendations (0+, 6+, 12+, 16+, 18+) and if a game has been rated 18+, shops will not sell it to minors. Importantly, if a game has been rated by this board, it can no longer be put onto the index maintained by that Federal Review Board for Media Harmful to Minors. So the far-reaching restrictions against advertisement no longer apply.
So maybe let's discuss specific examples where these laws go overboard, instead of alluding to hypothetical arguments while the concrete symbol under discussion directly supports genocide?
I'm an American and generally free speech / free communications absolutist, but it's weird to be taking issue with this in the existing context of Germany. From my own American perspective, I also consider the zwastika to be in a similar boat as the swastika. The free speech angle merely means that my personal judgement will inform my personal relations, rather than the boot of the state being involved.
Wait, what? Where is this rigorous standard for what constitutes an acceptable post, which excludes personal conclusions?
There's a restaurant down the street from me that's real trash. I sense that it's not doing well, since it's always empty. Do I need to go run a survey before I could share that?
One important difference is that, even when you don't specifically claim so, one can assume that you have been to the restaurant down the street enough times to observe a trend, whereas BitwiseFool's post seems to be pure speculation from an outsider's perspective.
>"whereas BitwiseFool's post seems to be pure speculation from an outsider's perspective."
Yes, that is indeed what it is. I wasn't using weasel words to claim my assertion was based on empirical evidence. I'm just sharing my own perception and I'm a little bothered by the implication that I somehow have to provide citations in order to simply share my perspective.
>"Then you've just thrown "I sense" in front of it all to make it okay that you're basing that on zero evidence."
Yes, that's being used as a contextual qualifier. "I sense" = this is my personal opinion, not an assertion of objective fact.
>"If you think they've got an "incredibly" high false positive rate you should go do the work to have some kind of factual evidence to base that on."
Why? Do you have some evidence this is a bad thing? If you think my use of "I sense" is harmful, you should go do the work and provide some factual evidence to back up your position. I see no citations.
I was calling out someone criticizing me for not providing citations whilst they also failed to provide citations. So that seems fair game to me.
Truth be told, though, I feel like your statement is insinuating that I somehow don't value science. Or, that I've never heard of the scientific method?
My main point of frustration is how people are expecting a level of rigor that isn't congruent with the medium. This is a forum, not an academic journal or a policy-making body. I don't know if "reverse gish gallop" has been coined yet, but I sense that when one finds someone they disagree with they can adopt the mindset that everything that person has said must be backed up with a citation. Virtually no one is equipped to perform a dissertation defense on a forum post, so demanding an ever increasing list of evidence is an effective means of discrediting the content without actually engaging with it.
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."
People holding opinions without any evidence is a modern plague, you shouldn't be defending it.
Just do some work to have a basis for your opinions. It is intellectually lazy not to do so, and you've got the Internet, Google and Wikipedia to help you get started, you don't even need to leave your couch and physically go down to a Library.
You can't admit other people have a valid objection so you just twist words and misrepresent others to avoid admitting your initial post was content-free and of no value. Please just stop.
>"You can't admit other people have a valid objection"
How can it be a valid objection if you've provided zero evidence to back it up? You are the one who decries a lack of supporting evidence, yet you've provided none in any of your replies so far. Particularly: "holding opinions without any evidence is a modern plague" because it looks a lot like a personal opinion of yours with zero presented evidence to back it up.
I don't see where it backs up your claim that "People holding opinions without any evidence is a modern plague". Don't pearlclutch about presenting opinions without evidence without providing the evidence you expect from others.
I don't like the duplicity of demanding citations and grandstanding about how bad it is not to provide any, while simultaneously making claims with "zero evidence". If they'll call me out on it, I'll hold them to their own standard right back. This is despite the fact that I don't believe everything needs a citation.
In any event, this is getting more and more contentious and we should probably all just leave things be.
You don't say if you'd been to that country, or experienced anything relevant that you presented, or anything to explain why you felt this way. As such, you give me nothing to ponder on nor any reason to agree with you (or even disagree).
NB: don't take it personally or feel bad, it's just a random interweb guy's disagreement!
> This might be difficult for Americans to understand, but the freedom of speech has certain lines that cannot be crossed in Europe, and it's mostly about clearly hateful symbols and/or words. You just can't put a swastika on your sleeve and expect no repercussions in Germany, like it or not.
As a German: It is worth noting, that the swastika is not only a nazi symbol (Hakenkreuz), but an ancient religious icon in Indic religions and it is commonly used across Asia to this day without symbolizing nazism. The "Z" symbol is coincidentally also a letter and a symbol that I played with as a kid when I was a Zorro fan. No Kremlin-Connection or Soviet-Ideology, I swear!
I think that banning such symbols while ignoring the context is ignorant and pointless, because A) it criminalizes non-nazi use and B) it is easily evaded by using drop-in replacements that everyone in the nazi scene knows, but that aren't banned, such as "88".
Most everyone talking here is doing so from a place of near-complete ignorance. There is literally sweet F.A. taught in grade-school history/social studies: the programs are myopic and narcissistic. Exceedingly few of us have lived outside our birthplace bubble long enough to understand the history and social climate of a foreign nation. Heck, less than half of Americans have a passport at all, and only a fraction of those who do, go further afield than Canada or Mexico. There is virtually nothing useful that Americans—North Americans—can contribute to a discussion of European policy.
I feel this thread is chock-full of ahistorical ignorance and fatuous libertarianism that shouldn’t have a place here, not because it is unworthy of discussion but because the participants lack the required education and life experience to do it justice. HN is great for technology insight and complete shite for socio-political discussion.
Libertarianism is when you don't want people to get arrested for drawing a sign that is literally not nazi.... while being charged of drawing a nazi sign? Wow, maybe you should reconsider how crazy that is. Germany has a bad history with the swastika, sure, but the Z is not the swastika. Calling everyone who disagrees with you a libertarian is what's ignorant, and not resisting to authoritarian urges is the unhistorical stance to take here.
You are not at war with Russia (thankfully!). And having a weird siege mentality when your country is not at war is borderline deranged. No, there's no "we are at war in all but name" because if Germany was at war with Russia, Z symbols would be the least of your worries. Going after symbols when Europe is still literally financing Russia's invasion as we speak is just... mind boggling. At least the so called "libertarians" are not paying blood money to Russia.
Germany and most of Central Europe are quite culturally conservative. They spend a lot of effort ensuring a stable and orderly society, up to and including prosecuting inflammatory speech and support for causes against the national/public interest.
Many Americans would see this as socialism, but the motivation is not equality, its stability and continuity of the status quo: ergo conservatism.
It’s not a system I could live under because I’m not super good at fitting in with people, but I see it’s merits.
I would say it has more to do with their history. It's kind of a special part of their history and it doesnt mean the rest of europe should adopt the same attitude
France has similar restrictions. French courts tried to restrict eBay from selling Nazi memorabilia to French citizens.
I don't like it. Which is why I choose to continue living in the US. It's not perfect by any stretch but people have different priorities. Freedom of speech is of the highest priority for me.
It should be noted, even the US has lines that can't legally be crossed. Slander, libel, panic-inducing expressions (yelling "fire" in a crowded theater) are examples.
The US and their obsession for freedom of speech is so weird, they can't say "fuck" on TV but are outraged that people can't fly nazi flags in Berlin's streets.
Also, depending on the metrics, the US isn't anywhere close to the top countries in term of freedom of expression, but they sure are the one boasting about it the most.
You can say "fuck" on TV all you want, you just can't do it on public airwaves that you're licensing from all of us. The vast majority of TV content is over cable or satellite and has no restrictions including straight-up porn.
Coming from Europe, this obsession with "free speech" that Americans have is kind of weird to me. How is that more important to you than affordable education and healthcare and reasonable gun policies where every crazy person cannot have 10 guns at home? And I am not trying to be insulting here, I just really cannot understand this.
In Germany, human dignity is the highest good and free speech ends where it would impede human dignity. Hence, there is good reason to ban Nazi salutes and symbols.
I can't speak for others, but for me freedom of speech is the absolute highest right, and the other rights are (for the most part) either subservient to it, or directly supporting it.
The First Amendment grants freedom of speech.
The Second Amendment is useful because it lets you defend yourself against powers that try to forcibly take away that right to speech.
The Third Amendment and Fourth Amendment are useful because they keep the military from moving in (to your property) to intimidate or hinder your speech, or to drum up other charges or steal your property to punish you for your speech.
The Fifth Amendment is useful to keep you out of a Kafka-esque nightmare where you're not officially breaking speech laws, but the government punishes you via an unfair judicial system.
Etc. for the remaining Bill of Rights.
The reason that I personally value this freedom so highly isn't that others should be able to speak, it's that I should have the right to hear whatever I want that others have to say.
If I want to go listen to speeches by a neo-nazi fringe group to understand what drives them, I cherish that right and would begrudge any system that says I'm not allowed to. How can one expect to understand the world of they're not even allowed to hear the words or observe the true personal expression of those they disagree with most strongly?
Likewise, in America the skepticism of government is pretty deep-seated, so I have no faith that granting a government body regulatory rights over some speech which I don't like wouldn't soon snowball into government using those same rights against speech I do like. Better to never grant such decision-making to the government in the first place.
This is just my personal take, so take with many grains of salt, but thought it might be helpful in explaining some of the underpinning American ethos (since I know that stuff can be hard to translate cross-culture)
How does freedom of speech transform into a right to hear? Are there no age restrictions, for example, on access to certain entertainment, art, venues etc.?
For speech itself, I'm indeed of the opinion that there should be no restrictions to accessing it. That is not to say that there can't or shouldn't be age restrictions on access to specific locations, or activities (or to expression which is not speech).
For instance, if a speech is given at a bar, it's fine to keep me out if I'm underage. I should be allowed to access any recordings or transcripts of the speech, however.
Again, none of this is held as gospel, and I think reasonable people can disagree here.
Having an absolute shit-show for a healthcare and education system falls under "not perfect". I'll freely admit a good many Americans (even most) would be better off living in Europe. But there are many of us that just can't accept not being able to express whatever we like. "Human dignity" is an admirable goal, but the extent and reach of that is subject to whomever is in power.
Yeah, it is curious that when self-recognized free speech advocates talk, they are not focusing on their right to run your own newspaper or criticize your own government but on the "right" to hurt someone with words and symbols.
It's not related directly. However, the parent comment to mine talked about choosing the US because "Freedom of speech is of the highest priority for me". My comment was that I don't get this at all. I would value other things way higher and hence I asked about it.
Interestingly, Wolfenstein was censored for decades in Germany, until suddenly it wasn't. Turns out it was legal all along to put Nazi symbols in video games... on the baddies that you're killing. I mean, fair enough.
As always the actual law is more nuanced than what fits in a tweet. Showing Nazi symbols in support of Nazis is forbidden in Germany, showing the exact same symbols in an educational context or in art, science, news or as a measure against nazis is perfectly fine. You're allowed to show people what a swastika looks like, and you are allowed to burn swastikas, but put it on your armband and you are in trouble.
For video games it's of course even more complicated, they have an age rating given out by an industry board (just like movies in the US) and their views on what's acceptable shift drastically over time.
> For video games it's of course even more complicated, they have an age rating given out by an industry board (just like movies in the US) and their views on what's acceptable shift drastically over time.
They also did a lot of weird stuff like replace red blood in games with green blood making the enemies "zombies" and thus making the game less violent somehow.
I would recommend against drawing any conclusion of reason from the decisions of this particular board.
They replaced the blood in Team Fortress 2 with nuts and bolts, making the characters robots.
Many countries regulate depictions of human vs. nonhuman characters differently -- even the USA. The USA taxed imported toys differently depending on whether the character depicted by the toy was human, prompting Marvel to argue in a court of law that the mutants from X-Men were not human in order to score a tax break on X-Men toys manufactured overseas. Which is just the opposite of X-Men's major themes.
For a long time, video games were considered, under German law, to have insufficient artistic or scholastic merit to permit Nazi symbols on the basis of context. So no consideration was given to context for Wolfenstein, it was just "swastikas in a video game = bad". Only recently did that law change.
Not a law change, no, "merely" a change in interpretation by the relevant agencies which got convinced that the old court decision they based their rules on wasn't all that good and not giving enough weight to the merit argument that has been in the law the entire time. (i.e. it's quite likely someone could have successfully sued against the rules before, but understandably that's not something the industry had much appetite for)
"It’s a jailable crime to support Russia’s Ukraine war in EU members Slovakia and Czech Republic"
The title actually makes it sound less drastic than it is. Czech Republic, Slovakia and Latvia actively investigate people "supporting" or "accepting" the invasion. There are official statements from government representatives, there are hot lines to snitch on your fellow citizens, and yes, there have been arrests.
I'm asking because it sounds from your post like you're opposed to those countries taking such measures. I've seen people be outraged at this sort of stuff and without fail, it's always been someone who's nice and safe and not in danger of being invaded by Russia.
My take on it is that unless you're from one of those countries, or have some other form of close experience or relationship with those countries, you don't really get to judge this. Supporting the war is tantamount to treason over there, because it is. Those countries are in danger of being the next target.
When is it okay to make it treason to support or accept a foreign invasion like this? When it happens more than two borders over? One border? Only when it's your own? Or maybe it's never okay, live and let live, the putin wants what the putin wants?
How is it treason to support (as in cheer for not support military) a country in a war your country is not fighting? Would it be treason to support Iraq too? The government decides what side to be legal to support?
These laws are very much an unfortunate slippery slope.
> How is it treason to support (as in cheer for not support military) a country in a war your country is not fighting?
Because geography?
Do you still not get that if Ukraine falls, those countries are next? Do you still not get that while Ukraine fights for its existence, its western neighbours are hoping all to god this gets resolved before it reaches them?
Do you still not get that Europe is sending billions of euros of military aid to Ukraine, so that the fight stays contained within Ukraine?
And do you still not get that the further this spreads, the higher the risk of nuclear war?
This isn't a game anymore. This isn't Keyboard Warrior Happy Time, where we all get together and meta-talk about a variety of fallacies on the news du jour that might happen years down the line.
People are fucking dying by the thousands, and if we don't stop it, it'll be by the millions.
The pandemic was nothing compared to what we're potentially facing if we fuck up.
Maybe the gas line should be closed off before German citizen are prosecuted by its elite for supporting Russia? I mean transferring huge amount of money helps the war effort more than Z-stickers. I guess the gov. decides what support is OK.
It is hilarious that some parts of Germany outlaws "Z" while at the same time giving weapons that will end up in the Azov regiment, which soldiers would be thrown in jail in Germany for wearing their nazi insignia. Like, Germany is for real arming neonazis in a foreign war.
But I guess I am the mad person for believing "the West" should not touch this war with a 10ft pole.
> It is hilarious that some parts of Germany outlaws "Z" while at the same time giving weapons that will end up in the Azov regiment, which soldiers would be thrown in jail in Germany for wearing their nazi insignia. Like, Germany is for real arming neonazis in a foreign war.
It's no more hilarious than the US paying lip service to democracy and then overthrowing whole foreign governments, or the US babbling about the First Amendment and then propping up theocracies in the Middle East. In fact, if anything, German actions are far less hypocritical, their scale considered.
Ok, so in your eyes, unless we can be absolutely perfect, we shouldn't do anything and let Ukraine get invaded and destroyed, and let Russia fuck around as much as they want to.
You're blaming others for thinking that position is utter madness?
It's not just Azov, there are plenty of other neo-Nazi groups in Ukraine. One of them, for example, is Right Sector.
If you're claiming that these groups do not have an outsized influence on Ukraininan politics/institutions, explain to me how what happened in 2014 is possible.
After months of protests, the government reached an agreement with the 3 most important political parties from the opposition (which were representing something like 40% of the votes). Apparently this agreement didn't sit right for Right Sector activists, which by the way were not even in the parliament, and they straight up threatened an armed coup.
> Activist Volodymyr Parasiuk warned from the stage that if Yanukovych did not resign by 10:00 the next day, an armed coup would be staged.
Do you think that an extra-parliamentary group with explicit neo-Nazi ideologies would be allowed to override the parliament's will, by threatening to kill the president, in any other country?
By the way, this is not to say that all of Ukrainian are Nazis. But 20% of the population can obtain 80% of the impact, especially when they are very well armed and moved by a dangerous ideology.
EDIT: Funnily enough, Right Sector leader Yarosh also recently threatened to "hang Zelensky by a tree" if he "betrays Ukraine". Can you be absolutely sure that these people and these threats are not having an influence on peace negotiation talks?
I don't know about other places, but at least in Czech Republic, approving Russian invasion it is not treason but it falls under generic law of "publicly endorsing crimes and atrocities" or whatever is it called.
You could get prosecuted for approving terrorist acts, genocides, whatever else. Most of the time it ends in probation and fine, I think one famous case was with some asswipe celebrating the New Zealand mass shooting.
There is also law against "promoting movements that aim to attack human rights and freedom" which is the law that lands you in prison if you promote Nazi ideology, wear Nazi symbols and similar. The Russian Z would fit there as well.
It seems that the article is being rather sensationalist about this.
In case of Slovakia, the cited law says that:
- deliberately threatening peace by instigating war, spreading war propaganda or otherwise supporting war efforts is a crime punisheable by gaol sentences of 1 to 10 years.
- the sentence is 10 to 25 years or lifetime:
- if the perpetrator is doing so on behalf or in connection with a foreign power
- as a member of a dangerous group (not specified in the article, but likely elsewhere)
- during a crisis
Slovakia has declared a state of emergency, as there's a war in a neighbouring country. There wasn't any mobilisation yet AFAIK, though.
There's nothing in the cited law to do with Russia or Ukraine specifically.
> The title actually makes it sound less drastic than it is. Czech Republic, Slovakia and Latvia actively investigate people "supporting" or "accepting" the invasion. There are official statements from government representatives, there are hot lines to snitch on your fellow citizens, and yes, there have been arrests.
It's actually only Latvia that the article mentions to have a hotline.
Incredibly stupid. And the problem is if you oppose it, you're labeled a sympathizer.
There's a valid third option: recognize that freedom of speech is an essential human right. Some may choose to abuse it, but history has a way of sorting those things out.
If you oppose it, I can certainly and very safely label you as somebody who doesn't know anything about Germany and its current laws, including the display of the swastika symbol and other nazi-related hate symbols and propaganda.
Europe is not the US, which I'm guessing you're from. We have a different culture around free speech, here. And tell you what, it's actually worked out really nicely for us, and most of Europe as a whole is higher than the USA on a variety of freedom indices.
We're not perfect, but the absolute free speech stuff you folks have over there is only good on paper. In practice, it's not absolute, and it has led to more issues there than here.
Hello, I oppose it. I live right next to germany, i know quite a bit about it. The 'Z' is not banned here. Neither is russian media. Unlike in germany where RT is DNS censored now.
And I think the US free speech model is vastly superior.
Your opinion is not universally held by europeans, i just wanted to make that clear.
And no I don't support the war, nor do I like putin in the slightest, just to make that also clear.
Never said it was universally held. Nothing is. I know european flat earthers, even. But do you disagree that it's by far the majority opinion and trend here?
BTW. If RT weren't DNS censored, all you would get is a 403. RT is now excluding most countries all on its own.
Z isn't banned here and I don't see any big calls to do so. Answer remains the same. Discussion was about freedom of speech and thus the RT ban is also relevant.
Looking at the page I can easily identify political opinion of the authors and detect view points of who should be given freedom of speech and who shouldn't. Thankfully they do link in small print to the methodology, which explain that the views are that of the Freedom House staff. They do consult others which is a major plus, but in the end its the staff that make a decision about what freedom is, who should get it, and who shouldn't. The biggest criticism I would give the site is the lack of any critical assessment of contested topics where different social scientists has different conclusions.
Unfortunately, you have a regime of approved speech under duress. A "culture of free speech" is far different, mainly, participation is voluntary without your person threatened under arrest from a government, but still using said human right in an acceptable manner to advance mankind.
And again, I dislike having to define these things; eventually someone will ad-hominum me saying I support a cause I clearly do not.
Freedom of speech is an essential but not absolute right. There are reasons to restrict freedom of speech in the name of greater good of the society that is enforcing that freedom and so the question is not whether restriction is just, but whether this particular restriction is.
Perhaps the speech is free, but instead you're being prosecuted for being seen as a member of the enemy? If you displayed a "Z" in Ukraine right now, best of luck to you, even if it is only because you really like the letter "Z".
> Some may choose to abuse it, but history has a way of sorting those things out.
History sorted these things, alright, but outcomes weren't as harmless as some people tend to believe.
In other words, how much value do you put in freedom of speech when human lives are in the line? E.g. shouldn't facebook have done something about the Rohingya genocide?
My point here is that history actually taught us that freedoms come with attachments.
I mentioned Facebook because it enabled the government of Myanmar during the persecution and genocide of the Rohingya people. They could have done something, but chose to ignore it and do nothing. This is not a unique occurrence either.
Freedom of speech without observing any moral or ethical consequences doesn't make you free, it makes you a libertine, and those who choose to enable these behaviours aren't innocent either.
On top of it, in this scenario, Russia is waging an information war against the West, so why should we grant them the freedom to do so?
As everybody never tires of pointing out, freedom of speech isn't unlimited nor does it apply to non-governmental actions. Can't get your jollies off yelling "Fire!" in a theatre. There's judicially accepted hate speech definitions. Also, what one says has consequences.
If you read the actual German law, this is unlikely to be enforceable. First, a German court would have to convict a Russian leader for leading a war of aggression. Then you'd have to convince a court that showing the "Z" symbol is an approval of this specific crime.
I would not think it "Relativity-hard" to make a case against Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Similarly, unless some clothing or other consumer item shows up real soon now, and they stop mixing the Z-flag with the Russian one, that shouldn't be all that hard, either.
Just like the banning of Russian TV channels, this is another step towards the same totalitarianism that the West prides itself on being in opposition to. Scary how it happened so fast, and without any public debate.
Russian TV channels have not been banned. Two propaganda channels have. Might look like semantics, but it's not. The fact that Russia 1 or NTV have not been banned is important.
In Germany they have very strict laws against the use of extremist symbolism, for pretty obvious reasons. Not only the swastika. The black standard of the islamic state or the hammer and sickle are also covered, for example. There are contexts in which they are allowed, obviously (art, education, research...) but this seems to fall in line with the usual cases.
I do and I don't. First, it is an unprovoked invasion of sovereign state. As such it is unlawful, morale bankrupt and totally unacceptable. It is also utterly stupid on more levels than can be possibly covered here.
It is kind of a grey area when it come to the West in general. The West invaded Afganistan, Iraq, Syria, Lybia, intervened in the Balkans. We in the West had Vietnam and Cuba, we had Algeria and all those little known wars in Africa. All of those were framed in ways not to different from what Russia is trying in Ukraine. Now, taking in refugees is seen as a sign of how great we are. When we refugees from other countries and regions in Europe it was called refugee crisis and ended up with people living in shitty camps and illegal push backs (the guy leading FRONTEX organizing those is still in charge despite indisputable proof). Europe is treating Ukrainian refugees way different from non-Ukrainians fleeing from the same war, not to mention those refugees stuck in Belarus. Western intervention in Ukraine is more than justified, once it is over and we have some time the West should do some much needed soul searching so. Not that I think that's gonna happen.
In my short life, I've supported the right of many people to say shit I disagree with. Even pretty awful, disgusting shit at that.
How come I'm able to draw the line at "supporting an unjustified genocidal war, the invasion and killing of my neighbours, and the destruction of their homes"?
How come I'm able to see the difference between "freedom of having and speaking opinions that are contrary to the mainstream's", and "freedom to want to murder innocents"?
I believe the war is engineered by the US, the only country benefits so much from this war, the US actually had intelligence about the war before anyone else, even called for it before it actually happened. So far, US's plan is working, Russia will be a lot weaker and Europe is very dependent on US, a lot money to be made on energy and weapon sales.
Probably US will try to use the same strategy with China if this works well against Russia. That's my personal prediction. Once Russia is weaken, US will move immediately on China.
How do you explain Putin's speech at the beginning of the conflict, claiming a return to previous imperial Russia borders? Or the fact that a quick celebratory article explaining Russians, Belarusians and Ukranians where united again was published by mistake and then quickly deleted by Russia's main news agency? Is Putin a US agent in this scenario?
1) on YouTube, there are many talks from American scholars, officials and intelligence talked about Ukraine, and predicted this conflict, even before the invasion, US insists that (although NATO doesn't want Ukraine) Ukraine has right to join NATO. US has trained Ukraine to be the frontline to fight Russia, knowing Russia would take action in response to NATO's plan;
2) US and UK are not worried the war would affect them directly, they are pushing to continue this conflict to bleed Russia economy and military, while other European countries who have a lot to lose want this conflict to end;
3) This war is not really about Russia and Ukraine, it is a war between Russia and US. To US's advantage, it is a proxy war where US does not need to participate directly. I believe US is more than happy to have this war than a direct conflict (which would result casualties and push back by voters);
4) Because this is mainly a US-Russia conflict, only US and Russia can stop this. US has shown no interests of deescalating the situation, instead, US has been using this as an opportunity to criticizing China, taking advantages of the situation. So far, US has not called for negotiation at all.
I think Putin's stupid to do this, look at history of war, US's 20 years in Afghanistan, 20 years in Iraq, how can you invade a country? Maybe his plan was to get rid of Zelensky quickly.
That skips over the major details of Russia choosing to openly invade another sovereign country, and engaging in barbaric all out destruction of civilian targets while doing so.
I agree the West's hot-cold meddling does not paint a rosy picture, and if we were just discussing covert actions in the Donbas/Crimea, your narrative could make sense. But once we're talking about open war, the relativism drops away and the aggressor becomes very clear - many Russian troops are occupying Ukrainian territory, while no Ukrainian troops are occupying Russian territory.
As far as US deescalation - what exactly do you think there is for the US to give? Ukraine's right of free association is not the US's to give away.
I totally agree Putin has to take the responsibility for this action, which is very stupid. In legal terms, definitely Russia bear the responsibility of starting the war. I think this is what the west is best at, always right on legality.
Ukraine is at loss, Russia will be weaker, it is a good strategy for the US, Europe will spend more money (but they are rich). The developing world is going to suffer with the food price and energy prices. Developing world is going to bear the cost of the war and sanctions.
From US the point of view, not deescalation is the best option. You know what US could give? Just tell Ukraine that NATO is not the best option for it, could be behind doors, I am sure US does this all the time. Unfortunately Ukraine was not discouraged, rather encouraged to pursue a dead end.
It seems as if you don't even know the Russian side. Which speaks to the effectiveness of the suppression of information and propaganda in the 'free world' which we unironically label ourselves. Ukraine's NATO membership is bound to be viewed as a threat by Russia. Regardless of whether you think this justifies the invasion, it can't simply be written off as 'nazism', a childish oversimplification of the issue.
(And if the above made you think I support Russia, or the war, you might be brainwashed).
> It seems as if you don't even know the Russian side.
Most people know this. But Ukraine was not even able to join NATO because of disputed territories. So in case of Ukraine argument about NATO threat is pretty naive.
> if the above made you think I support Russia, or the war, you might be brainwashed
Yeah, well, you say that but you're here continuously defending them, and you're bringing up weak arguments. Upthread you've also said you "read RT daily", and maybe that has something to do with it.
FWIW, I'm extremely familiar with the Russian side of the argument. Not everyone is because not everyone is interested in digging into geopolitical issues that don't concern them directly beyond reading the news over breakfast cereal or vaguely scrolling a couple of retweets. This doesn't imply they're "brainwashed" or that we "suppress information"; I had no trouble at all finding all of Putin's idiotic arguments since 0224.
Of course, you can play right into his hands and "discuss NATO" or some shit, as if there is ANY justification to the war crimes and atrocities being committed every day. Civilians being explicitly targeted, hospitals and shelters being bombed, chemical weapons being used, and so on.
"Yes but you see, NATO" is justifying the unjustifiable.
> It seems as if you don't even know the Russian side
The Russian side doesn't matter. They're invading in a brutal manner a sovereign country for the interests of an authoritarian leader and his clique. It doesn't matter why he thinks this is the best course of action ( it isn't, whatever he hoped to achieve was unachievable from day 1), he's flat out wrong and doing a morally abhorrent thing. All of the excuses Russia has provided for the invasion are very flimsy at best, but usually outrageous ( like that Ukraine isn't a real country and has no national identity).
Russia has multiple NATO neighbours ( Baltics, Poland). Occupying Ukraine will add a few more ( Hungary, Slovakia, Romania). Even if we take Putin's "geopolitical concerns" at face value, and we shouldn't because Russia has done nothing but lie, it doesn't make sense.
But again, it doesn't matter why the crazy old person is bombing maternity hospitals, the important part is that he is, he deserves all the pushback possible and he should be punished for that.
The comparisons to the Nazis are in the playbook only - delusions of grandeur and nationalism, dismissal of other peoples, X isn't a real country, etc.
And yet based on further comments trotting out the NATO canard, the inference was correct. While there are certainly abstract free speech arguments to be made about Germany (and larger Europe), and despite being a proponent of the ideal of frees speech, I'm not particularly eager to advocate for it in the context of Europe during wartime.
Hum... I'm not sure you meant misrepresent the OP's ideas and painting him as a genocide apologist was the "right thing to do" or that banning the symbol is ok.
And if you meant that banning the symbol is ok, it does not immediately follow that discussion about the censorship (it is still censorship, even if it's ok) should be banned.
Anyway, in a huge thread, there appeared a single answer about NATO. So if you want to go tag something, that answer is a good one.
Ukraine is a victim of an aging dictator that lost his marbles. A dictator that accomplished his goals within Russia without any opposition, got bored, and decided to play a rather bloody chess game geopolitically.
That said, it started with Putin gradually eliminating opposition, controlling mainstream media and blocking non-mainstream ones, beating down all organizations that had organized people working together and expressing alternative opinion (religious organizations, trucker unions, heritage funds).
The West is currently about 1-1.5 decades behind. We are silencing fringe voices instead of reasoning with them. We are canceling dissidents instead of tolerating them. We let a handful of people with their own interests decide what is "information" and what is "misinformation". If we let this process continue, it will inevitably follow the Russian curve.
The mechanics here is very simple: once you create a position of power that decides what is right and what is wrong, the person occupying this position will seek more rights and wrongs simply to justify their existence. And others will join that cause for the sake of promotion/influence. Such structures only fall in a larger turmoil (bankruptcy of a company, fall of the government, etc) that inevitably brings a lot of destruction.
I am so tired hearing “we have to listen to fringe voices” because oh my lord so many of those fringe voices are anti-democratic, accelerationists, theists, and/or greedy misanthropes.
Banning “Z” is banning support for a mafioso political system that is not only anti-democracy, but also actively murdering an internationally-recognized democratic nation… again.
Fringe voices need to give their heads a shake and sit this one out.
Coincidentally, Russia's history for censorship starts with banning the popular-back-then neo-nazi party[0]. 20 years later, you get a prison sentence for questioning the "special military operation in the Ukraine".
But no, this time is different. I'm so tired listening to the bad guys, let the good guys shut them up... /s
I repeat: Banning “Z” is banning support for a mafioso political system that is not only anti-democracy, but also actively murdering an internationally-recognized democratic nation… again.
> State Russian TV show in prime time discusses possible nuclear strike on Europe, Russian invasion of Poland and Lithuania and corridor to Kaliningrad, threatens Germany and Baltic states.
Yeah, tell you what, I'm very ok with banning Russian propaganda. There will be plenty of time to worry about slippery slopes if we're actually alive by the end of this.
What isn't true? The video I linked you, that was aired on Russian TV prime time, and confirmed by multiple sources? Am I missing something?
And what would I be surprised at exactly? I'm getting a 403 when I load RT because RT banned my country from reading it. I used to read it once in a while FYI, just to get a sense of the types of articles they'd publish.
I've wondered if I can paint a "Z" on somebody's car and then people will trash it. Maybe it happens only in Ukraine.
There's a lot of precedent for this in Germany. A Berliner went to jail circa 2000 for training his dog to make the Hitler salute. Rumor has it that the Nazis persecuted people for the same thing but the opposite reason.
I think there would be very easy ways to find out if there were vandals or his own writing and his own convictions. Do we know of any errors or mistrials regarding missatributed nazi symbols which are - by the way - banned since decades in Germany? I don't. So you can draw a Z in the dirt of the neighbor's car if you want to test the idea (and happen to live in Germany, which I don't believe), otherwise your relativization is just what it is: a fallacy only serving one side.
Yeah we should be careful, next thing you know they'll ask you to get a license to drive a car and they'll inject you vaccines at birth, imagine that ah, what kind of totalitarian hellscape that would be.
They banned Putin's personal propaganda channels and a hate symbol used by people supporting an actual totalitarian regime who's currently invading a country and slaughtering civilians, don't get confused on who's wrong here.
And don't forget that the US freedom of speech is an anomaly, not the norm, both in term of application and in term of ideals
There isn't really a slope here, this completely in line with earlier applications of the same law. For example the IS flag and various Nazi symbols are also banned. This is part of the tradition of "wehrhafte Demokratie" (defensive democracy) that was established after the bad experiences from the Weimar republic with anti-democratic forces abusing the democratic structures.
Keep in mind that Germany is not the US, and human dignity is actually placed above freedom of speech in the German constitution.
People tend to forget that we are waging a war - an information war. And the first thing you do when you are at war is denying your opponent of any advantages.
But regardless of current events, this could fit in the paradox of tolerance. Should we tolerate the intolerant, i.e. Russian apologists? History hasn't been very kind with the proponents of absolute freedom of discourse.
Yes. Tolerance is absolute, it must be capable of withstanding anything without compromising. Otherwise it is not tolerance, it is selective intolerance.
A truly tolerant free speech society should be able to tolerate even literal nazi discourse without crumbling. What happens in practice is people get tired of debating, decide they're right and start excluding others.
Well that's your definition. I'd recommend reading about the history of Europe and its philosophers, you'd discover many version of freedom, freedom of speech, tolerance, &c.
Contrary to what Americans believe these things aren't written in stone by a Divine hand and are products of a long process
I'm not american. My country has even more restrictive freedom of speech laws than germany and they were inspired by the european ideas you mentioned. When in doubt, judges in my country will literally cite european law to support their decisions.
> A truly tolerant free speech society should be able to tolerate even literal nazi discourse without crumbling. What happens in practice is people get tired of debating, decide they're right and start excluding others.
It’s funny how it looks like you are almost sympathizing with nazis. By definition, nazis seek to exclude and maybe exterminate, everyone they don’t agree with, so tolerating them means giving them the right to preach their methods. That’s pretty much the core of Popper’s paradox of tolerance:
“Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.”
> It’s funny how it looks like you are almost sympathizing with nazis.
Not really.
> By definition, nazis seek to exclude and maybe exterminate, everyone they don’t agree with, so tolerating them means giving them the right to preach their methods.
If society can't tolerate their preaching and remain democratic, what does it say about society? About humans and their rationality?
> If society can't tolerate their preaching and remain democratic, what does it say about society? About humans and their rationality?
You could just look back and see by yourself. We don't need to hypothesise about "what could happen", because it already has. Popper himself based his explanation of the paradox of tolerance in the rise of Nazi Germany.
So we're supposed to impose truths on everyone whether they like it or not and exclude those who don't accept them? Do you realize that this is not tolerance but authoritarianism?
Germany has banned the swastika, a symbol of a past war, for a long time. Why wouldn't this also include banning the zwastika, a symbol of a presently occurring genocide?
Even as a libertarian, it's really hard to take overly simplistic freedom-invoking arguments in good faith when they appear to lack any context.
Clearly unrelated, but interesting that 'Z' is used as a symbol of rebellion against the junta following a coup d'etat in the film of the same name. Though based on events in Greece in the 60s, the themes of corruption, intimidation and oppresion of freedom are probably what we would be seeing under a 'Z' controlled Ukraine. The cynic in me thinks that whoever decided on this branding of the Russian invasion knew that it would be a headache to moderate/censor in more open societies due to plausible deniability, as this discussion shows.
We can all be upset that russians are ruining a perfectly good letter, just as nazis ruined a perfectly good symbol, and hitler ruined a perfectly good mustache.
I wouldn't punch someone wearing that mustache style, but I'd also find it super gross regardless.
I don't have that shirt, but if I did, I also wouldn't wear it, and I would find it a waste. Sometimes, people ruin things for you. Life sucks. My SO's sister lost her home in Kyiv to the bombs, I think I could live with just losing a shirt.
Please cite that, there is almost no chance at all that a first-time offender would face prison in Germany in such a case. It's very unlikely a case like you described would end up prosecuted at all.
I started looking for the incident I remembered from about 15 year ago and it turns out there have been many people have been arrested and jailed since then. [1]
Linking to google search is not a source. On the first google page, I see zero cases of a foreign citizen getting jailed in Germany for this kind of offense. Detained and fined != in prison.
This is based on §140 of the German Strafgesetzbuch which concerns rewarding or publicly condoning criminal acts. We will see if this interpretation is upheld by the courts. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think it's obvious that this would be upheld.
This might also require additional aggravating factors to be illegal, the pagraph specifically mentions that this has to happen in a way likely to disturb the public peace.
The laws around freedom of speech are also obviously different than in the US, e.g. Nazi symbols are specifically outlawed.
It's really weird to see people here arguing about any kind of support for this modern fascism. Guys, whether you like it or not, there's war going. Right now the war is fought in Ukraine -- I no longer have a home to return to, my parents are sheltering in the basement, and while I'm relatively OK I do have friends who were murdered when Russia shelled Kharkiv.
But there's another aspect of this war -- information war. And it's being fought right now everywhere. While you argue against any censorships, Russia bans/jails/fines/kills EVERYTHING that doesn't strictly follow official party guidelines.
1. Russia bans everything that they don't 100% control: Facebook, Twitter, Instagram. Heck, Meta is now officially an "extremist organization". I'm not even talking about other large media outlets -- all banned, latest example I've heard is German DW.
2. You're in Russia you are not allowed to call this a war, because official position that this is a "special operation". People do get fined for this.
3. They fined a guy with a sign "Фашизм не пройдеш" (== "no to fascism", but literal translation would be "Fascism will not pass"). Courts ruled this to be "discrediting of the Russian Army". People are constantly jailed/fined for "no to war" signs and for their posts on VK (Russian clone of FB). Even high profile people are censoring themselves online. Even high profile people (Yevgeny Roizman) are being investigated for a simple "like" in a social media.
4. There are pro-war rallies. Regular people are beaten up and harassed for "no to war".
5. Whether you like it or not, but Z became Russia's swastika. Main TV channels openly support it and openly discuss plans about turning western world into ashes. Prime time TV openly discusses the war plans and how those shouldn't stop with Ukraine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgcP30dIIqw main propagandist (Solovyev) openly says "with sanctions like those why do we have to stop [at Ukraine]?" and "seven troubles -- one answer -- all world to ashes", which paraphrased means that they have a universal answer to any trouble: nuclear bomb ("all world to ashes"). Or another openly discussed plan how would they conquer Europe: https://www.unian.net/russianworld/u-soloveva-obsuzhdayut-ok... Or another one: https://twitter.com/carlbildt/status/1506315902169534464
7. Putin's rhetoric resemble's Hitler's to an uncanny degree. "National traitors", "solution to the ukrainian question", etc.
9. They terrorize anyone with at least a bit of opposition. They threw a severed pig's head in a wig to the doorsteps of Alexey Venediktov apartment (chief editor of "Echo of Moscow" radio station (recently banned, of course)). Oh, and Ukrainian emblem with "Judensau" (== "jewish pig", an anti-semitism thing). This is not a unique thing -- if you want, I'll give you a couple more examples. But the main thing is that perpetrators could not be found.
So please, for your own sake, do not help those propagandists in any way, because they don't play by the same rules as you do.
