So which is more important, political speech or TV nudity?
You’re right about how it can be annoying to be the recipient of unfair broad brush strokes. If only that sensation comes to mind in the future when the temptation arises to generalize about conditions in America… :dubious:
Why do I have to weigh one against the other? For me, it’s politics. It seems like public nudity is something that bothers enough Americans, that politicians pander to them.
But maybe you think it’s not a big deal that TV nudity is restricted in the U.S. That it’s more important to let ‘free speech’ be protected when it comes to BIG issues, like politics.
The thing is - free speech should be about free speech, no matter what the issue is. And if you think the U.S. isn’t suffering from this, check out statistics for teen pregnancy and abortions in the U.S. as compared to almost any Western European nation.
There will ALWAYS be people who try to ban speech. The question is, how many of them are successful at it? Especially at the federal level?
By your standard, we don’t have freedom of assembly, because there are always people who will petition to stop it.
Now, I’m not saying there have never been restrictions on speech. But the people who usually come out in defense of free speech in these cases seem to be silent on this one, or actively on the side of suppressing it (not all, of course. But far too many).
Most of these anti-nazi laws were instituted by great pressure and “guidance” from occupational governments after WWII, including, and probably especially, the U.S.
The fact that these laws exist is due, in great part, to America’s legacy. I find both the subject and the people arguing in oblivion of this, America’s Great Democratic Export, quite ironic. These laws are installations of our own devise.
America…exporting the ideals of Democracy for 100 years (except if those ideals aren’t in our best interest.)
<shakes fist at devilsknew for posting first>
Yeah, what he said. The German constitution was put in place as a stopgap measure in 1949 (awaiting reunification and a “real” constitution - obviusly a longer wait than expected) and it is very much coloured by the aftermath of WWII and the crimes of national socialism. (For instance, it describes in the most minute details how no one can be forced to do military service against their will, how military force can only be used for defence etc.) And it was hugely influenced by the occupation authorities - whose stated objective was to prevent Germany from ever again becoming a threat to the peace of the world . Under those circumstances, outlawing Nazism (and any propaganda that minimized their crimes) must have seemed a completely logical idea.
For now, the Germans are stuck with it, of course. Running for office in Germany with an agenda of free speech for Nazis is probably not going to go over well. Getting a majority in Parliament ? I have a feeling that there are more pressing matters to deal with. I am in no doubt that there would be international repercussions as well, matter of principle or not. So as a matter of realpolitik, not much to be done.
Except: If David Irving’s case were to end up in front of the Human Right’s Commission and the commission held its nose and found in favour of the asshole - now, that would place the governments of Austria, Germany etc. in a much better position… They’d be able to get rid of an outdated law without painting a bulls-eye on their backs. After all, it wouldn’t really be their decision. Freedom of expression wins, a bunch of politicians wouldn’t have to retire early and the only regrettable side effect would be that David Irving was back on the street. Hmmmmmm…
As it happens, the point is sorta moot - the cartoons were originally published in Denmark, where Nazi propaganda is legal, for what good that does anyone. (And yes, there are hate speech - and even blasphemy - laws in Denmark. The judge threw out the cartoon case as being neither.)
Well said.
Of course, a free western Europe is America’s legacy from WWII too. :wally
I got a little too real for you there?
I can’t help it that the dumbass who started this thread doesn’t know her history, and that you see the US as some Great Unblemeished Untouchable. Get real! Yea, we did a great thing in WWII… never forget. But to conflate American ideals and Realpolitic is the great patriotic mistake.
Mostly I agree with you, but that sounds as if there was strong opposition to these laws.
One can certainly argue whether these laws are effective or desirable, but the views on free speech are fundamentaly different from country to country.
In the US and many other countries it is seen as almost absolute and unconditional (except for certain accepted restrictions like libel/slander.)
However this view is not universal. In both Austria and Germany it is only garanteed that restrictions of free speech must be based on laws. Of course there are people who regret that, but the general idea that “free” speech is subject to further regulations is well accepted in the political mainstream.
When you accept that, among other things, you can’t slander, insult, incite hatred or call for crimes then banning propaganda for a violent movement that aims for the destruction of the state and democratic society is not so far off.
Larry Flint was in court on civil charges.
The Janet Jackson issue was a matter of a regulatory agency having the authority to fine the organizations it regulates, NO ONE was EVER charged with a crime or in any threat of going to jail for three years for this.
It’s not even on the same scale. You’re comparing something that isn’t a crime in America to something that is a crime in Austria.
Also, legislators cannot ban books, period. They can ban books from government institutions they cannot and do not ban books from society at large. If you want to buy Mein Kampf or a David Irving book you are more than free to do so.
Give some examples.
Yeah, only difference is in Europe they send you to jail for saying things they don’t like and in America they uh, fine a multi-billion dollar corporation a few hundred thousand for showing a tit on primetime. Yeah, regulatory actions are similar in some way to being sent to prison for exercising a divergent opinion.
Why? That’s not even relevant. What’s sad is just how ironic this situation is. The Austrian government is punishing a Nazi sympathizer by locking him up for his political opinions.
Your entire argument is a non-sequitur and a false analogy. You make no serious or effective points at all. You’re comparing REGULATORY AGENCIES FINING CORPORATIONS to government LOCKING SOMEONE IN JAIL! We’re not talking about the same things at all! Quit making the analogy!
The United States is the country that allowed publication of a magazine which detailed instructions on how to build a nuclear bomb. If you want to tear in to us about free speech you have to go back to the Red Scare of the early 20th century.
Yes, actually it is. We haven’t locked anyone up for expressing an opinion.
Anyways, I think we should stop the Europe/America trainwreck right here and now. The fact of the matter is it is wrong for government to lock someone up for their political opinions, and that means it is WRONG for Austria to do this whether or not America does similar things or any other country.
Even if I accepted your ludicrous claims about the United States, that’s not an excuse. Just because one country does something doesn’t mean it justifies the same thing for another country.
So what happens if they don’t pay the fine?
Actually there is absolutely no evidence of that at all, and you’re basically full of shit.
And it’s nothing short of reprehensible to justify government oppression simply by pointing your finger at America and screaming, “They did it too!!!”
In case you’re curious Austria and Germany have passed anti-Nazi laws without any compelling actions from the United States, years after the occupation was over. Yeah, during the occupation the Nazi party was outlawed. And in fact there was very limited freedom in Germany right after the war, but once Germany got set up on its own feet it had the legitimate freedom to pass almost any laws it wanted as long as they didn’t represent acts of war against other countries.
Your argument would be like America trying to impose a sedition law today because 300 years ago when we were colonies of the United Kingdom the UK had criminal sedition on the books.
We’ve been independent way too long for that and so has Germany and Austria.
The FCC can fine a broadcaster and if the broadcaster refuses to pay the fine it will have its license revoked. Revocation of said license would be financial ruin for the company in question.
The FCC doesn’t have the power to arrest people.
All I have to say is that our constitution is a standing prohibition against Monarchy, just as the German and Austrian constitution are prohibitions against National Socialism…you are a dumb short sighted fuckwit.
the only difference is, we weren’t summarily forced to accept our constitution as defeated enemies.
I’m pretty sure Flynt has been arrested for desecrating a flag, and I consider that form of speech just as important as any other. While you might argue that that was over 20 years ago, we’re certainly not the paragons of free speech that many claim, even today.
Too “real”? Hardly. I dare say I am more familiar with what actually occurred, and the post WWII/birth of the cold war realities that drove U.S. policy during that time period than you are. Citing German anti-Nazi laws as America’s “legacy” of WWII is not just stupid, it’s aggressively ignorant, willfully ignoring basically the entire world situation in your zeal to criticize America over one small issue (speaking of which, BTW, I think that any American push for these laws was wrong. Understandable, but short sighted and wrong).
Isn’t it hard to carry that much anger around, Martin Hyde?
From here.
This is not an issue of “you do it too”. It’s about where different societies draw their lines for free speech. Austria (and Germany) have strong laws concerning Nazis and hate speech. The U.S. tries to protect its citizens from obscenity. Neither law would be in place unless there was enough popular support for it.
The Gaspode:
The 73 year old man was not arrested for making porn, he was arrested for racketeering and shipping porn across state lines (I am guessing there are rules in place for how to ship porn between states and he didn’t follow them.)
And that quote by Gonzalez means nothing. OK, so one guy in our government (ok, probably lots of guys) want to stop obscene material. And? There will always be people in power who want to limit our freedoms in one capacity or another. In his mind, certain things not considered obscene elsewhere and even here currently should be labeled as obscene, but he hasn’t really made much progress. Hardcore pornography is still legal to make, buy, and sell, as long as all parties involved are of legal age and appropriate documentation is kept of that fact. Find me someone who as actually gone to jail in recent years for making or showing porn.
Ah another my country is better than yours thread.
Our Holocaust deniers are way cooler than your child pornographers. Neener, neener, neener.