>Nazi salute
>Use of this salute is a criminal offense in Germany,[3] Slovakia,[3] and Austria.[3] In Canada, the Czech Republic,[4] France, the Netherlands, Sweden,[3] Switzerland, and Russia, the salute is illegal hate speech if used for propagating Nazi ideology
I can't believe this shit is real life
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
>see thread in catalog
>I bet OP is American
101% chance
Yes it's very bizarre that a nation such as Russia, which gave 20 million lives to defend itself from the Nazis, would not very much like Nazi salutes.
I don't personally believe in censorship but I understand why they'd ban this. It's a salute that is associated with a group that killed millions of people from those countries, excluding Sweden/Switzerland.
>Responsible for the destruction and occupation of Germany and most of the other countries you listed
You can be a white nationalist and against immigration without being a self destructive Nazi
Russia had like the greatest number of neonazis at some point, didn't it?
You realize that in the case of Germany limits on free speech in cases concerning anti-democratic speech were added when the United States wrote the German constitution?
My point is that a gesture can land you in jail
show me the millions for Slovakia,Canada,Czech Republic,France and Netherlands
...
It's not illegal in Sweden. It's illegal to do it towards someone in a particular situation. You can't walk into a temple and do it for example, but you are free to do it as long as its not aimed towards anyone.
It's complicated.
I can't tell if you're supporting the law or opposing it.
And your pic is
>I don't like a harmless gesture, ban it
Who do you think created these laws?
Americans did
>it's not illegal
>but here is a situation where it is illegal
so...
don't go to Germany and respect their laws? or are you saying Germany should change their own law to match your opinion?
im not understanding the argument.
millions collectively
a gesture that represents a murderous ideology
hes saying its a dumb law you fucking leaf
I'm saying that banning a harmless gesture is retarded
how is that not a difficult thing to understand?
fucking in your own room is not illegal.
fucking outside on the park bench is illegal.
somethings are illegal based solely on their location and timing.
Everything Americans dislike about modern day Germany is something the American post war reeducation instilled into the collective mind of this nation.
We could be different but we have been raised this way.
helo welcom to socialim :DDD
Yes, Americans have done a lot of dumb shit in other countries, we know. What's your point?
The worst part is that all those cuck laws are so engraved into Germany's collective consciousness that they will never recover. The Allies went overboard with the pussyfication.
why the fuck is it even illegal in sweden, as if we had anything to do with ww2
>on the park bench
No, that's not illegal either.
You could do it anywhere you want technically. As long as it's not aimed towards anyone.
If you do it in a temple, you will be taken to court because you did it aimed towards jews for example.
Muh steel.
no obscenity laws in Sweden?
30% of Belarus died in WW2, its not banned there, your reasons are trash, i doubt you could even put one million people from all countries above that got killed by nazis that were not jews
jews still count as citizens of their respective countries you retarded slav
those jews were voluntarily given to Germans, Slovakia even payed for every jew shipped out
Salvete
Brazil, you can answer when we talk about SOPA.
>don't go to Germany and respect their laws?
What a terrible argument. If I object to 12 year old Saudi girls being forced into marriage, will you say the same thing?
very good post from a very good poster
That wouldnt cover it.
yes, what do you expect me to do? create an army, navy and air force and conquer the country so i can change their laws?
it's their fucking business. I don't have to like it, but i respect their fucked up laws. I just won't go there and i wouldn't want anything to do with them.
Yeah free speech is an imperfect concept. It allows fascist to rise to power and we cannot allow that.
Why are canadians such shit posters
Maybe next thing is to start burning books. Or calling judaism a hate crime. But that's all fine since it's anti-nazi, right?
It's so ironic.
You've got a bit of a vicious circle for yourself here.
You seem to be saying you shouldn't complain about something unless you have the capacity to change it, but you're complaining about me doing just that when you can do nothing to stop me. Checkmate, Canuck.
Literally doing a nazi salute right now.
It's not because of the killings, mate. It's because we don't want these retards to destroy Europe a second time.
What are you supposed to do with people like Trumpfags? They don't listen to reason. They are basically the private army of the demagogue of the day. We cannot have that shit within our borders.
nice strawman, i never said you can't complain. i said what is the point of complaining.
There is no specific law that designates the Roman greeting as an offence, but it can be used in a discriminatory way in which case (under very specific circumstances) it may be punishable.
Getting enough people unhappy about any given situation is the only effective way to change something. Well, the only legal way anyway.
No hate speech in Canada and I agree with the law. You can speak, you have freedom of speech unless it's meant to incite hatre
o/
>nice strawman
>i never said you can't complain.
Pretty ironic, buddy, seeing as I never said that you said I can't complain, only that I shouldn't.
doornail bloompf is a fat fucking fascist orange
Would you be this triggered if former commie countries banned Soviet apologists? Almost like this isn't about your free speech, I wonder what it's really about...
>American drinks beer in public
>gets arrested by cops because the US is a puritan shariah state
>they are literally forced to hide their beer bottles in brown bags
I don't know about you but being able to drink a beer or wine in public is more relevant to my life than doing the nazi salute
>being allowed to drink in public is more important than political expression
Truly a brave, new world we're living in.
Freedom of speech is a much more important right than someone's feefees. Besides, hate speech laws can be so easily applied to anything, so they're inherently very dangerous.
And even blatant hate speech creates discussion, and discussion is how things ever move forward.
A republican state has to have provisions to protect its free and democratic order. If you are abusing the freedoms provided by this order with the end goal to abolish them alltogether then you are forfeiting those freedoms and can't rely on the republic to give you special protection.
We have no specific law forbidding it. But it can be prosecuted as a regular insult, if you mean it as such.
>degenerate lowlifes drinking everywhere
cool if you're 16, i prefer not paying a fine for raising my hand though
If democracy is as objectively meritorious as people say, why does it need such unique protections?
fascist US will be unstoppable, cant wait until i can kill muslims and negroes with my own hands
Please explain to me, what exactly is so 'unique' about the principle of self-preservation?
This seems to be the most basic principle of any form of organization ever, from biological life forms to complex political and social entity.
Why is it illegal in Russia after they so comprehensively BTFO the Nazis?
It's really no different from Confederate flags/statues being removed in the USA.
Maybe if you had a dictatorship kill millions of people and lead to your country's destruction you'd feel the same way.
Well, first of all, it's unique insofar as its application to freedom of speech laws is a unique departure from the general principle.
Second of all, it is a dramatic overreaction to an individual's exercise of freedom of expression to suggest that the whole political system will come crumbling.
Thirdly, this is the first time I've ever seen democracy and constitutional republicanism defined in terms of such domination. It's supposed to be about individualism, flourishing and limited government, not hegemony.
I disagree completely. If people want democracy, then such measures are unnecessary. If the people don't want democracy, then the most democratic thing to do is abolish it.
europeans are retarded, they like like not having free speech, if you asked Slovaks if those laws should be removed you would get like 90% negative response
Because the current destruction of said countries through mass immigration is so much better?
Thr government is not a living, breathing thing, so self-preservation should not apply to it. It seems to me that you're defending institutional inbreeding and bureaucracy rather than something tangible.
And criticising mass immigratio can easily be constructed to be hate speech and thus censored under these kinds of laws. People are so fucking stupid that they simply don't understand how dangerous restricting free speech actually is, no matter how good the intentions.
Exactly, people were so concerned with nazis that they dodn't anticipate other unfavorable outcomes in the future.
Small tight nit european countries are based desu. Would live in one if I could.
every. single. time.
kek
>I can't believe this shit is real life
That's because it's not illegal in canada. Leave it to a dumb fucking yank to believe everything he reads on wikipedia.
This principle of militant democracy is an essential pillar of Germany's post-war political order.
These provisions are the result and conclusions of the direct past experiences with the failure of the Weimar Republic, the rise of dictatorship and the complete collapse of any freely democratic and republican order.
Where is your limited government if this kind of banal passivity leads to the rise of authoritariansm.
Only a pampered invidvidual spoiled by peacetime and freedom would think that the current state of things is somehow unshakable but it wasn't not that long ago when things where very different.
Could someone explain to me how exactly did all of this start? Was any of this planned or it just began out of the blue?
Except most hate speech isn't in an open public forum. It serves those in a position of power, like priests or imams to corrupt the youth they are tasked to guide.
In Canada, this has been the only known application of the law and I vehemently disagree that all speech should be free speech.
>It serves those in a position of power
It serves people in power, alright, like the government and majoritarian whims.
Except that's an open discussion where people can critique what is said. That could be useful if there was a meaningful discussion.
In Canada, if I incite you using hate speech to harm others, that's illegal. That's the purpose of the law. I agree with it.
Meanwhile some swiss politician had a german "Reichsflagge" in his basement. People just don't gave a shit when the media discovered it.
>if I incite you using hate speech to harm others, that's illegal
That's not what hate speech laws are, you dipshit.
Incitement to violence isn't the same as saying a particular race has a lower average IQ or not referring to a transgender by their preferred pronouns.
>Ban assault gestures
I remember when I was 14 and wished I lived in Europe lmao
Germany tried to copy Italy again
SALVTTO AL DVCE!!!
Perhaps too general for you, but it is.
en.wikipedia.org
Oh, when I said they're not the same, I meant by objective standards of reason, not Canada's feelings-based sham legal system.
>mfw every basic bitch travels to europe and thinks it is a utopia
>denounces everything american
>thinks i'm not cultured enough to understand it
i'll take my guns and ability to raise my arm thank you very much
I think you're incorrect. I think its a sham groups can advocate the destruction of others. It's not fucking feelings when the bullets fly based English common law Ireland.
Have any civil servants, policemen, soldiers, etc. ever been fired or prosecuted for displaying a confederate flag?
You can fly it wherever you want no matter who you are, but military has stricter rules for obvious reasons.
Non-elected civil servants may face pressure to resign (because employment-at-will exists here) but no one has ever been prosecuted for the flag.
Rekt
The American left has an immense disliking of the South and Midwest because they're less than welcoming to SJW ideologies. I'll put it to you simply.
If the speech is so infantile that it calls for the destruction of others, then it should be easily solved with discussion. If it becomes a problem then there are deeper underlying issues and the incitement to violence is merely a symptom.
So words have no meaning and you can't convince people to do anything?
Of course you can convince people to do things, just as you can convince them not to. Which is how the issue should be resolved.
Should it be legal to knowingly spread a disease, even if you know there is a cure for it? Say, smallpox.
Shouldn't be against the law, just needs to be treated.
I fail to see how that's equivalent.
I think that's a bit of intellectual dishonesty on your part, but I can entertain it.
The problem is that just because there is a way to undo the damage done by someone, does not mean that the act of doing that damage should be tolerated. The idea behind these laws is that there are things that have been accepted as proven to be unambiguously damaging to a healthy society, and they are treated as such. To attempt to get them to take root is a conscious attack on the fabric of society. That they can be argued against is irrelevant: the act of spreading then is wrong.
Take the case of the woman who convinced that guy to commit suicide, or that Canadian dude who convinced a bunch of American teens to take their lives. Could you conceivably have convinced those tend not to kill themselves? Maybe, but the fact that it is hypothetically possible is meaningless and is absolutely not a defense.
>Defending this shit
>Flag of a country in the EU
101% chance.
It is very different. You are allowed to fly confederate flags and have confederate statues in the USA. People will just think you're a faggot and racist.
You don't go to jail for it. It's called freedom of speech.
>People will just think you're a faggot and racist
In cities, yeah
The united states draws lines on protected speech, too. The borders are just different that's all. It just comes down to a question of where you think the sweet spot lies.
If you are actively spreading a disease, then you're the one causing bodily harm to others. That is different.
>The problem is [...] spreading then is wrong.
Anything can be constructed to be an attack on the fabric of society. If the society is to last, it'll have to get a better tailor.
>Take the case of the woman who convinced that guy to commit suicide, or that Canadian dude who convinced a bunch of American teens to take their lives.
Is suicide even illegal? Regardless, I'm not seeing an issue. The people who do the deed are always the ones who are responsible.
>Could you conceivably have convinced those tend not to kill themselves? Maybe, but the fact that it is hypothetically possible is meaningless and is absolutely not a defense.
Says you. Innocent until proven guilty without a shadow of a doubt. You aren't responsible for someone else killing themselves.
Oh I meant to reply to an NZ who said that America does the same thing.