• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Poll: Would you ban the Nazi Flag?

Would you ban the Swastica/the Nazi Flag?

  • Yes

    Votes: 7 18.9%
  • No

    Votes: 23 62.2%
  • Maybe

    Votes: 3 8.1%
  • Don't Know/Other

    Votes: 4 10.8%

  • Total voters
    37
  • Poll closed .

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Exactly. How did they feel empowered in the first place? Someone took the platform and used it to tell them as much. That’s the point.
When the Alt right was rising in power they hid behind “freedom of speech” in order to promote their views. Subtly at first but over time they began to shift their audience’s perception of socially acceptable opinions and phrases to espouse. Under the guise of “it’s all just jokes, bro.” Hitler did very much the same thing. Only without the internet, obviously.
Censoring doesn't work either. I agree Trump crossed some lines that shouldn't be crossed (like his "second amendment people" remark or his lies and telling people to fight for it), but censorship just doesn't work. There are still Nazis in Germany, and far right ideologies. There have always been coded messages.
You can't ultimately ban an idea. It's inherently doomed to fail, there are often punishments that exceed the alleged crime, and more often than not used to censor necessary information.
I don't know if this was the case in Nazi Germany, but in America it's also a reflection of two different Americas. A deeply conservative rural America and a coastal, liberal metropolitan-minded America. They tend to hold very different views. Things may he censored either way, but things get discussed (like in churches, a traditional spreader of misogyny and racism) and meetings still happen. It's not just banning books or forbidding platforms. Most people usually don't self identify with unacceptable things unless they feel safe and empowered, but they are there already discussing these things. Today there is the internet so it's basically futile to even try now.
What's here is here and has been here a long time. You can't ban it away. You have to meet it head on. Unfortunately, America is very deeply divided. It's not a matter of censorship, it's a matter of declining empires. America had a good run, but the support beams aren't looking too good at this time.
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
Censoring doesn't work either. I agree Trump crossed some lines that shouldn't be crossed (like his "second amendment people" remark or his lies and telling people to fight for it), but censorship just doesn't work. There are still Nazis in Germany, and far right ideologies. There have always been coded messages.
You can't ultimately ban an idea. It's inherently doomed to fail, there are often punishments that exceed the alleged crime, and more often than not used to censor necessary information.
I don't know if this was the case in Nazi Germany, but in America it's also a reflection of two different Americas. A deeply conservative rural America and a coastal, liberal metropolitan-minded America. They tend to hold very different views. Things may he censored either way, but things get discussed (like in churches, a traditional spreader of misogyny and racism) and meetings still happen. It's not just banning books or forbidding platforms. Most people usually don't self identify with unacceptable things unless they feel safe and empowered, but they are there already discussing these things. Today there is the internet so it's basically futile to even try now.
What's here is here and has been here a long time. You can't ban it away. You have to meet it head on. Unfortunately, America is very deeply divided. It's not a matter of censorship, it's a matter of declining empires. America had a good run, but the support beams aren't looking too good at this time.
I’m not saying censor such ideas. Just that we can’t offer them an equal platform. Everyone has the right to free speech, but access to a platform is not a right. It’s a privilege. One that is sometimes conflated with free speech but is not the same. Basically freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. So what I’m really saying is we need to make such ideas socially unacceptable. Including all the “dog whistles.” We cannot allow plausible deniability and we need to arm the future generation with the skills necessary to recognise rhetoric for what it is and foster critical thinking skills. Encourage discernment and actual proper research.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
would you feel the same way about the french tricolour given the amount of time we've been at war with "those dam frogs"? There might be some very sharp croissant, baguettes and other baked goods I could throw at you. :D

france-flag_large.jpeg

Meh, I figure the French and the British are effectively the same people given their constant cross-border raiding.
This all just amounts to a civil tiff amongst cousins.

(*puts on his fireproof pants*)
 
Last edited:

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
Yes, I trust we are strong enough to police and protect ourselves. And censorship is a tricky slope. What is banned next? What symbols are illegal and who decides that?

I spent a solid ten seconds on this, so I'm sure there are plenty of holes, but...
Any symbol used specifically by an enemy of the lawful government of a country in attacking and killing soldiers and citizens of that country will be illegal, apart from internationally recognized national symbols.
That would go someway to dealing with both the Swastika and the Confederate Battle Flag. You're welcome.

If they start threatening anyone with violence then it becomes a crime.

One might argue that the Nazis...as a coherent ideology...have cleared that hurdle.
And that it's exceedingly difficult to support and adhere to Nazi ideology WITHOUT threatening anyone with violence. And that we all know this all too well. And that the Nazi symbol is in and of itself a threat of violence.

It really seems pretty straightforward. Now, if you want to make an argument about edge cases, and how difficult it is to draft and police effective legislation on this topic, then sure...there is a point to be made.

We're struggling with that question here right now, and I'm not about to suggest we have a slam dunk answer for it.
FYI : Victorian inquiry recommends banning Nazi symbols and strengthening anti-vilification laws - ABC News
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
Censoring doesn't work either.

Meh...it's not as black and white as that.
Censorship is widely varied in form and function, and I don't think one could argue that 'it works' or 'it doesn't work'.
If you're argument is that censorship can't eradicate certain groups or thoughts, then sure. And attempting to do so is going to cause more harm than good.
But the same could be said about pretty much any protective rules. Speeding rules neither remove all speeding, nor remove all speed related deaths. And I'd readily argue that some places (ahem : where I live) use them more for revenue raising than effective safety purposes. However, I wouldn't argue for the complete removal of speeding rules.

I wouldn't want to see the swastika banned. However, in certain contexts, I'm happy for them to ban it. A bunch of people marching down the street waving Swastikas and shouting Nazi slogans? A ban like this helps Police break up those type of protests and gatherings more easily. I don't think they're going to be out hunting down Nazi swastikas, but it does give them a reason (or excuse) to enter premises and make arrests which can be problematic otherwise.

I know...and respect...that some see that as the thin edge of the wedge in terms of removal of freedom. I see it differently. We should be clear about what our society will tolerate. I see no reason to tolerate Nazis, even whilst acknowledging their existence.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
I spent a solid ten seconds on this, so I'm sure there are plenty of holes, but...
Any symbol used specifically by an enemy of the lawful government of a country in attacking and killing soldiers and citizens of that country will be illegal, apart from internationally recognized national symbols.
That would go someway to dealing with both the Swastika and the Confederate Battle Flag. You're welcome.



One might argue that the Nazis...as a coherent ideology...have cleared that hurdle.
And that it's exceedingly difficult to support and adhere to Nazi ideology WITHOUT threatening anyone with violence. And that we all know this all too well. And that the Nazi symbol is in and of itself a threat of violence.

It really seems pretty straightforward. Now, if you want to make an argument about edge cases, and how difficult it is to draft and police effective legislation on this topic, then sure...there is a point to be made.

We're struggling with that question here right now, and I'm not about to suggest we have a slam dunk answer for it.
FYI : Victorian inquiry recommends banning Nazi symbols and strengthening anti-vilification laws - ABC News
I wasn't so clear on this myself so I looked it up on Wikipedia and found:

United States
The public display of Nazi flags is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution which, affirmed by the Supreme Court case Texas v. Johnson, guarantees the right to freedom of speech.


I can agree with this. Nowadays, I see this symbols as just someone expressing their own internal anger and bitterness to society and don't suspect they are smart enough to have any political agenda to accomplish any changes in society. And changes anyway would have to come through our democratically elected channels.

Certainly government empowered censorship abilities seems a greater evil than someone with even a Nazi tattoo on their forehead. I can see the far left wanting to censor symbols they consider racist, sexist, homophobic, whatever. What a can of worms.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
I wasn't so clear on this myself so I looked it up on Wikipedia and found:

United States
The public display of Nazi flags is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution which, affirmed by the Supreme Court case Texas v. Johnson, guarantees the right to freedom of speech.


I can agree with this. Nowadays, I see this symbols as just someone expressing their own internal anger and bitterness to society and don't suspect they are smart enough to have any political agenda to accomplish any changes in society.

You're wrong, frankly.
Plenty of the rank and file members, I would agree with you. But they are more sophisticated and more directive than you're giving them credit for.

How Australian neo-Nazis are seeking to spread influence (theage.com.au)

And changes anyway would have to come through our democratically elected channels.

How do you think lobby groups have become so big, and pervasive? Do you really think 'democratically elected channels' are proof against organizations and agendas?
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
You're wrong, frankly.
Plenty of the rank and file members, I would agree with you. But they are more sophisticated and more directive than you're giving them credit for.

How Australian neo-Nazis are seeking to spread influence (theage.com.au)



How do you think lobby groups have become so big, and pervasive? Do you really think 'democratically elected channels' are proof against organizations and agendas?
In a free society like the U.S. we believe in freedom of speech for people we don't like and people we may even consider evil or crazy. We do make it a crime to directly threaten people.

The OP was about banning the Nazi flag. I do not consider that a direct enough threat.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
In a free society like the U.S. we believe in freedom of speech for people we don't like and people we may even consider evil or crazy. We do make it a crime to directly threaten people.

Sorry, I just reviewed my last post, and I worded it pretty poorly. To be clear, I don't think your opinion about freedom of expression is wrong. I think it's entirely defensible, even though I don't quite agree. And I didn't think you were wrong about the US legal precedent. In fact, for some weird reason I didn't even NOTICE that part of your post when responding.
So I apologise if I gave the impression I was suggesting you or your opinion was wrong in any holistic way, that wasn't my intent at all.

The one thing I thought you were wrong on is how organised these groups can be, the intelligence levels of some in leadership positions, or their ability to influence.

Sidenote, whilst the US is 'free' in terms of freedom of speech, freedom is about more than that. There are plenty of countries (the US amongst them) who can consider themselves free, even though by some measures some are more free than others.
Freedom Index - World Freedom Index

The OP was about banning the Nazi flag. I do not consider that a direct enough threat.

Fair enough. I respect people who believe freedom of expression is more important than restricting this type of hateful image, and I think there is a definite case to be made for that. I fall on a different side of this argument, but I don't think it's a clear one.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
It's a very simple poll question for you to vote on and debate. Do you believe that the Swastika, the flag of the NSDAP or "Nazi" Party should be banned in the United States (or your own country). The vote is private, you can change your votes if you decide to later and the poll will close after 14 days/two weeks. What do you think on the subject? :)

Edit: Here is a link to a discussion and poll on banning Communist symbols from 2016. (16 out of 18 votes were against such a ban.)
I voted "other".
The Nazi flag, the swastika, the SS runes and others are banned in Germany and it is a good thing. We needed to tell the world and the Germans that we wouldn't let that happen again, besides other means by radically banning everything nazi.
Other countries followed suit shortly after.
But what is the reason to ban it in the US (or anywhere else) just now? Is there a rise in openly national-socialistic groups? If not, I see the move to ban as an indication of an attack against free speech in a pool of other attempts.
70 years ago it would have been a good idea, but now? Why?
 

Lain

Well-Known Member
This seems like a good place to consider Popper's Paradox.
The US is so obsessed with free speech that it's allowed quite a lot of radical extremist groups to ferment, and have more platforms and powers than if they were soundly rejected from public spaces. We come to be numbed to and used to extremist viewpoints, to the extent that we start 'both siding' and 'give them a chance.'

Free speech to the extremes that are values by some Americans has made the US less free, not more. It'd go so far as to say it's at least one of the reasons why we are the last in every civil rights battle we've ever had.

View attachment 55937

I've never fully gotten this idea of how it's a "paradox." Simply be intolerant. I think it's perfectly fine to have categories of people you simply don't tolerate or want to associate with or have certain freedoms/rights in your nation. Most people have murderers, rapists, etc, in this category. I don't see why you have to pretend to call it "tolerance." It's not a paradox at all, if you allow everyone to do everything it runs contrary to the goals you want in a nation (unless that is in fact your goal), so you simply do not tolerate some things. I must not be getting something about how he defined "tolerance."
 

Shaul

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
If Nazi flags are banned I’ll need to find alternatives for fire starter.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Meh...it's not as black and white as that.
Censorship is widely varied in form and function, and I don't think one could argue that 'it works' or 'it doesn't work'.
If you're argument is that censorship can't eradicate certain groups or thoughts, then sure. And attempting to do so is going to cause more harm than good.
But the same could be said about pretty much any protective rules. Speeding rules neither remove all speeding, nor remove all speed related deaths. And I'd readily argue that some places (ahem : where I live) use them more for revenue raising than effective safety purposes. However, I wouldn't argue for the complete removal of speeding rules.

I wouldn't want to see the swastika banned. However, in certain contexts, I'm happy for them to ban it. A bunch of people marching down the street waving Swastikas and shouting Nazi slogans? A ban like this helps Police break up those type of protests and gatherings more easily. I don't think they're going to be out hunting down Nazi swastikas, but it does give them a reason (or excuse) to enter premises and make arrests which can be problematic otherwise.

I know...and respect...that some see that as the thin edge of the wedge in terms of removal of freedom. I see it differently. We should be clear about what our society will tolerate. I see no reason to tolerate Nazis, even whilst acknowledging their existence.
There are ways of discouraging without impeding on rights. School curriculum, PSAs and such. Ban certain things and others will be used. If people can't march in public they can still meet privately. So just let them reveal themselves and work from there. Such as, I wouldn't ban them but I would plant people in them.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
There are ways of discouraging without impeding on rights.

It's fair to say my thoughts about 'rights' don't match up well with many posters on this board, including Americans in particular. I'm only interested in discussions of rights that includes discussions of responsibilities, basically. People flying symbols of an evil regime we literally went to war with don't get that luxury, given how fundamentally they OPPOSE people's rights.

But I'm aware that is fundamentally different to how many view the world.

School curriculum, PSAs and such. Ban certain things and others will be used. If people can't march in public they can still meet privately. So just let them reveal themselves and work from there. Such as, I wouldn't ban them but I would plant people in them.

I think we have some level of responsibility to protect citizens from extreme hate-speech, and I think anything hearing a swastika that;
A) pertains to Nazis and;
B) is being shown by a person who subscribes to Nazi ideology;
meets that threshold.

I'm okay if you don't. We may not agree on this.
 

Kooky

Freedom from Sanity
There are ways of discouraging without impeding on rights. School curriculum, PSAs and such. Ban certain things and others will be used. If people can't march in public they can still meet privately. So just let them reveal themselves and work from there. Such as, I wouldn't ban them but I would plant people in them.
If suppressing political movements doesn't work then why would it be such a danger to freedom?

If Nazis can just meet in private anyway, and legal prosecution does nothing to curb their ideas and support, then banning them isn't really a big deal is it?

EDIT: Nevermind, I thought you guys were talking about banning Nazis, not their flag and nothing else. Apologies for my misreading.
 
Last edited:

Kooky

Freedom from Sanity
But what is the reason to ban it in the US (or anywhere else) just now? Is there a rise in openly national-socialistic groups?
I don't know, what do these people look like to you?
CHARLOTTESVILLE-RALLY-11-08-17.jpg


EDIT: Nevermind, I thought you guys were talking about banning Nazis, not their flag and nothing else. Apologies for my misreading.
 
Last edited:

Kooky

Freedom from Sanity
In a free society like the U.S. we believe in freedom of speech for people we don't like and people we may even consider evil or crazy. We do make it a crime to directly threaten people.
And calling for ethnic cleansing or genocide isn't really a direct threat. After all, Neonazis have assured the American public that they're only after "peaceful genocide" and seeking their ethnostates by "nonviolent" means. (This is not a joke, by the way.)
 
Top