Zoso Posted January 17, 2005 Report Share Posted January 17, 2005 I saw this on Fox News so I don't have a link but, in the wake of Prince Harry's idiocy, the EU is considering banning Nazi symbols in its 25 member countries. Someone explain to me the logic behind denouncing fascism by stifling freedom of expression. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurgessLau Posted January 17, 2005 Report Share Posted January 17, 2005 I saw this on Fox News so I don't have a link but, in the wake of Prince Harry's idiocy, the EU is considering banning Nazi symbols in its 25 member countries. Someone explain to me the logic behind denouncing fascism by stifling freedom of expression. So that the members of your audience don't need to re-invent the wheel, please tell us what steps you have taken, so far, to find an answer. For example, have you done any research -- online or in your university library -- examining the EU official announcements and perhaps their constitution or its equivalent? Further, could you tell us why this -- of all the questions in the world -- is the most important unanswered question you face in life? I am really jealous. You seem to have a great deal of free time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted January 17, 2005 Report Share Posted January 17, 2005 The basic principle behind EU politics is the greatest common good, and Nazism is not good for anyone. Therefore it is better for all, to prohibit a few people from referring to Nazism in a non-denunciatory manner. Many people become visibly upset at the mention of Nazis, so such an act would send a clear message about what is acceptable behavior in Europe. BTW, freedom of speech is not recognised as a basic right in Europe, and there are a number of laws against inappropriate speech. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lu Norton Posted January 17, 2005 Report Share Posted January 17, 2005 I saw this on Fox News so I don't have a link but, in the wake of Prince Harry's idiocy, the EU is considering banning Nazi symbols in its 25 member countries. Someone explain to me the logic behind denouncing fascism by stifling freedom of expression. Please define freedom of expression. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AwakeAndFree Posted January 17, 2005 Report Share Posted January 17, 2005 In Germany the swastika has been forbidden since WW2, I believe. So the Neo-Nazis just invented a new symbol. It's like a swastika with 3 "legs" instead of 4. I'm not sure, but this might have been forbidden too, after some time. Anyway, it is really downright foolish. These governments make sure the children learn, through public schools, the very values of Nazism: nationalism, socialism, altruism and unreason - and then fight symbols as if they had any significance in themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMERICONORMAN Posted January 18, 2005 Report Share Posted January 18, 2005 Idiocy? I don't know. I haven't read any of the stories, but when I saw the picture, I immediately chuckled. I don't think that Diana's boys like being royal heirs. I certainly doubt Harry does. I thought that he was expressing that there is a connection between being a king and being a Nazi; both are agents of Tyranny. I doubt it is hard for Harry to gather the data to make this connection. I hope his reading list is not censured. And besides if my grandmother was a Queen, I would take every opportunity to piss her off ... who knows, maybe one of my stunts might give the bitch a heart attack. Americo. P.S. ... you know, because the power luster is a dog--a leash has TWO nooses--and the queen is female. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the tortured one Posted January 20, 2005 Report Share Posted January 20, 2005 wait, I do not pay attention to the lives of the English Royal family. What did the prince do this time? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Posted January 21, 2005 Report Share Posted January 21, 2005 wait, I do not pay attention to the lives of the English Royal family. What did the prince do this time? He went to a party and wore a nazi symbol on his left arm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
non-contradictor Posted January 26, 2005 Report Share Posted January 26, 2005 I heard on the news that it was a costume party. I mean, it isn't as if he randomly went walking down the street in a Nazi uniform. It was in poor taste in my opinion, but no worse than someone dressing up as the devil, grim reaper, or a priest. No one objects to those costumes except over-protective mothers of grade school children. (as for the priest one, not even them) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iouswuoibev Posted January 26, 2005 Report Share Posted January 26, 2005 I heard on the news that it was a costume party. I mean, it isn't as if he randomly went walking down the street in a Nazi uniform. It was in poor taste in my opinion, but no worse than someone dressing up as the devil, grim reaper, or a priest. Except the grim reaper and the devil don't refer to anything in reality, whereas a Nazi symbol does. I think that makes it worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidV Posted January 26, 2005 Report Share Posted January 26, 2005 I saw a pot from ancient Greece adorned with swastikas at the Metropolitan Museum of Art the other day. Would this be banned in Germany too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Eurocentric Male Posted January 26, 2005 Report Share Posted January 26, 2005 I saw a pot from ancient Greece adorned with swastikas at the Metropolitan Museum of Art the other day. Would this be banned in Germany too? A swastika is an old symbol, meaning to be a crude representation of a solar disc or a spiral. It's common in ancient Indian and Buddhist art. Hitler just borrowed it. There's also the matter of the sense of the swastika. The way the outer branches are turned, clockwise or counter-clockwise. I cant remember how it goes, but most swastikas are the the reverse of Hitler's and where considered a good luck charm. If the swastika's you are talking about where turning. Even if they where Hitler type swastikas they would form an exeption because of their historical nature. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalism Forever Posted January 26, 2005 Report Share Posted January 26, 2005 no worse than someone dressing up as the devil, grim reaper, or a priest Good one! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalism Forever Posted January 26, 2005 Report Share Posted January 26, 2005 I saw a pot from ancient Greece adorned with swastikas at the Metropolitan Museum of Art the other day. Would this be banned in Germany too? I don't think so: Last year, I saw the floor of a Roman room covered with a pattern of reversed swastikas in a museum in Cologne, Germany. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruno Posted January 26, 2005 Report Share Posted January 26, 2005 I wonder what they would do if prince Harry had wore the communist symbol instead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the tortured one Posted January 26, 2005 Report Share Posted January 26, 2005 I wonder what they would do if prince Harry had wore the communist symbol instead. are you kidding? they'd love it. Buncha commies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
non-contradictor Posted January 26, 2005 Report Share Posted January 26, 2005 Except the grim reaper and the devil don't refer to anything in reality, whereas a Nazi symbol does. I think that makes it worse. They think it refers to something in reality though. It would make it worse for us, but not for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plaintext Posted January 26, 2005 Report Share Posted January 26, 2005 I do not think the law should ban a symbol. (There may be some special contexts where a symbol may be construed as a threat, but that would be an exception.) Lu asked for a definition of "free expression". From the thread, I assume it is the legal right of an individual to express herself in the way she chooses, in speech, writing, dress as long as she is not violating someone else's rights. Suppose the law does not ban it, is it still in good taste? I've never been to a costume party. I do not know the rules of ettiquette. Does one have to wear a custome of someone good? Can one not come dressed as Torquemada? I suppose it depends on what the host specifies. I see no reason to assume that the prince acted in poor taste. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
non-contradictor Posted January 27, 2005 Report Share Posted January 27, 2005 ... Suppose the law does not ban it, is it still in good taste? I've never been to a costume party. I do not know the rules of ettiquette. Does one have to wear a custome of someone good? Can one not come dressed as Torquemada? I suppose it depends on what the host specifies. I see no reason to assume that the prince acted in poor taste. It is my personal opinion he acted in bad taste. I find nothing funny or interesting about dressing (essentially mimicking) someone evil. I don't understand why anyone would want to... Also, something can still be in good taste even if the law does ban it, provided the law is unjust. For example, if someone banned the dollar sign, I would still find it in good taste to wear one. For clarity I will *attempt* to define what I mean by good/bad taste: something in bad taste- something I would probably not do in the same context because I think it is stupid and/or wrong something in good taste- something I would probably do in the same context because I can see that there is a good reason for it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMERICONORMAN Posted February 7, 2005 Report Share Posted February 7, 2005 I do not think the law should ban a symbol. (There may be some special contexts where a symbol may be construed as a threat, but that would be an exception.) Lu asked for a definition of "free expression". From the thread, I assume it is the legal right of an individual to express herself in the way she chooses, in speech, writing, dress as long as she is not violating someone else's rights. Suppose the law does not ban it, is it still in good taste? I've never been to a costume party. I do not know the rules of ettiquette. Does one have to wear a custome of someone good? Can one not come dressed as Torquemada? I suppose it depends on what the host specifies. I see no reason to assume that the prince acted in poor taste. If a costume party, why not come as Torquemada. Especially if one is in love with Victor Hugo. Not only is his T. horrific but it is quite amusing. Americo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.