France wins; Yahoo! rolls over.

Great Debates
21

First, as a member of this board, it IS my place to condemn anything that I feel is stupid, ridiculous, or too emotionally involved.

You may mistake my motives. I’m not for preserving any of the mores of the Third Reich, or any hate group. I’m attempting to point out, however, that the French and Dutch attempts to stamp out Naziism are not likely to have the effect they want.

Suspending logic for a particular case lends power to the very thing you’re trying to defeat. If you want to make sure this kind of thing gets that attention is really deserves, you might try publishing Mein Kampf on really thin, perforated pages, with a convenient hook to hang in the bathroom…

22

Oh dear, us poor dumb europeans. Hell, what will we do next - take evolution out of the science curriculum, perhaps?

23

Fighting Ignorance is fine, Screwtape, as long as the lines of common decensy are respected. I understand your motives, and do not mistake you for a Neo-Nazi. I’m merely suggesting that the current European stance on Nazi matters, while only temporarily effective (I’m sure Mein Kampf will be legal 100 years from now), does serve a social purpose within the healing process that started after the Liberation, and continues until this day.

I’m only asking you to respect that, even though it may conflict with your (hell, with mine, even) sheer logic.

24

And that is applicable exactly how? Look up the logical fallacy tu quoque.

25

Psst, Coldfire! I got a copy of Mein Kampf hidden here under my trenchcoat. Wanna take a peek at it? First chapter’s free, kid.

26

Thank you for the respecful tone of your response. We both want to see the end of people being hurt by the Nazi blight. We just disagree on how to do it. I believe that abridgement of freedom of speech and suspension of logic when dealing with Naziism keeps the wounds open longer. You seem to feel that common decency allows for said suspension.

I feel that the greatest decency will be supported by logic, but allowing the perception of decency to supercede logic is itself, indecent.

Someone else has brought tu quoque to the discussion, so ad hominem and reductio ad absurdum cannot be far behind.

Maybe we should quit while we’re still friends.

27

It’s interesting that this has turned into a debate on free speech laws. The biggest issue I have with the situation is that of jurisdiction. Suddenly, French courts can fine a US company for what is on a US server, and not be ignored as fools trying the bend the world to their view.

I wish every country on the world had perfect free speech, but I respect that they may have such laws that are counter to the concept. Since I do not live in the country, I should have no say in the matter.

And I feel the reverse should be true. The French court should have zero say as to what is on a US server.

Typically, someone at this point will say, “What about child pornography? Suppose there is a country where there are no laws against such perversity, couldn’t people just make kiddie porn sites from servers of this country?”

Yes, they can. Here’s the point: **Finding something deeply offensive does not give you jurisdiction over it. ** As much as I find things like child pornography repugnant, I realize that my outrage does not give me right to subject my will over other countries. The best I can do is urge my representatives to sanction countries that have such human rights violations. What sheer gall it would be to assume that the laws of my country should have jurisdiction over the whole world.

28

It appears there is a fundamental difference between the European and American view of censorship. If I may be so bold as to generalize from Coldfire’s statement, Europeans believe that freedom of speech is negotiable, so long as the end (suppression of Nazi references) is noble.

Here in America, if there is one constutional ammendment that is even more sacrosanct than the right to bear arms, it’s the right of free speech; that’s why it is Number One. Whenever a local government or agency tries to restrict it, there is such a hue and cry that it is almost always rescinded. It is guarded more jealously than any other right, because when it is weakened, we believe all rights are in jeopardy.

Do not try to convince us that less freedom is better for society; if you do, you simply do not understand our view of freedom, or why millions leave their homes around to world to come here.

We would rather suffer the ravings of madmen than deny them their rights to speak freely. Our system is strong enough to withstand words and ideas from any source; for it is only deeds that people are held accountable.

29

Screwtape wrote:

Incoming post hoc ergo propter hoc! Hit the dirt!

30

As much as I detest censorship in any form, the nazis are a unique exception in a large part of the world’s history.

There is essentially zero, nada, zilch, zippo, null, bupkus and no redeeming qualities to the nazi establishment. Its aftermath serves only to propel new recruits into the ranks of hatemongers and bigots. So little of any benefit is served by any continuing exposure of the public to this drivel that it is hard to imagine why it merits discussion.

We Americans are less aware of the continuing rift that exists in Europe due to the presence of neo-nazi elements. They are symbolic of all that modern man has stiven to eliminate from this world, yet instead they continue to rear their ugly head.

However much I abhor censorship, nazism is itself even more repellent. The outright evil that it disseminates through its propaganda is wholly without merit and deserves no place in modern society. The complete expungement of it from our history would better serve us than another fifteen minutes of their continued existence.

31

I would say it has something to do with an old saying that (paraphrased) goes “Those who fail to remember the past…”

I’m not a neo-Nazi - or a hatemongering bigot - or assorted other similar words - but I own a copy of Mein Kampf - I own a biography of Hitler - I own the book Ordinary Men, about Polish citizens in the death squads - why? Because the fact that one lunatic could create so much misery and draw the world into a huge war is as amazing as it is horrid. I find it fascinating that a people could so easily be lead to follow the will of one man. I’d rather learn about it, understand it, and perhaps be able to recognize it the next time it comes around (and it will, I would bet).

Maybe we should ban all references to the WW2 Japanese war machine because of that nasty attack on Pearl Harbor? I don’t think so.

Yet, we have idiots like the self-declared militia, the Ku Klux Klan, the Black Panthers, and other hate groups. Shall we start banning their thoughts as well? I think neo-Nazis are morons - I also think the way to detract from their ranks is to drag them into the light of day and show them for what they are - in the meantime, I’m not willing to censor thoughts. I am more than willing to punish action.

32

Unfortunately, there have been numerous incidents in Europe between Neo-Nazi hate groups and immigrants there. The Nazis and the holy symbols the movement descecrated by adopting them have become some of few symbols considered catholically blashphemous, at least by decent civilizations. Wear one and you virtually invite a fight. The laws there are intended to curb the proliferation of a neo-Nazi movement by banning the most notitious part: namely the symbols. There is no first amendment equivalent in the corts in Europe, so as a results there are these restrictions that seem peculiar to us.

33

Uh-huh. Exhibit A, the all purpose video game bad guy. No one will ever be more fun to shoot then nazis. Even now, when people want to censor violent videogames from children’s eyes, if you say that you are going to kill nazis they will always let you. Hell, they’ll probably ask if you could include a button to explode the facsists’ heads.

34

Mein Kampf is available in it’s entirity online at http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/ and other sites. Seems like it would be hard to keep the people from reading it in these countries where it is banned, even if all the written copies are under lock and key.

Mein Kampf was required reading in one of the advanced history courses in my high school, and this was in a rather backwards little East Texas town.

I think banning Nazi symbols and such is not good for what they are trying to achieve, as rebellious teenagers are going to be more drawn to it if it’s illegal than if it’s widely available.

BTW, I have an uncle who collects Nazi memorabilia and he is definitely not a Nazi. This ban will hurt legitimate collectors, not just neo-Nazis.

35

I gotta go with Revtim, here. This is the larger issue. I wish Yahoo would have stuck to it’s guns.

36

Yes, Hitler’s Nazi party, and all that was evil- so we ban all it’s symbols. Next, there is the Italian Fascists, then the Stalinists, then the KKK, then the guys who just happened to lose the last election. Banning “Mien Kampf” is a really good way of keeping Hitler’s ideas alive. Maybe they could put everyone who is a Nazi (or has “Nazi blood”) is a “special work kamp” to protect the fatherland from their insidious evil. :rolleyes:

37

OH, and, good buddies over at Yahoo? I have heard that in China it is illegal to own a Bible. Maybe we should ban those from sale, also.

Or, if we are just anti-Nazi, some folks ban the playing of Wagner- so quick, start censoring that music dept!

38

Well, no.

First of all, you can’t generalise for the entire continent. There are numerous countries where one CAN read Mein Kampf. It’s just that in the Netherlands, it is considered too offensive at this stage. We were under siege for 5 years. Lots of Dutch Jews died. The wounds are deep. Having said that, that’s just one country.
Secondly, I dare say that Freedom of Speech is as important in European countries as it is in the USA, and I can only think of two things that are actively censored in the Netherlands (again, I’m not going to speak for other countries since I don’t know all the different legal systems extensively):
[ul][li]Nazi material and behaviour is censored to a larg extend;[/li][li]Insults regarding the Royal Family are by law subject to censorship. The enforcement of these laws is, however, extremely rare.[/ul][/li]Other than those two, there’s no difference between “your” and “my” freedom of speech. Or maybe there is, as we’ll see below.

Yes, I know. And in theory, that’s just great. Our consitution provides similar protective constructions, by the way.

I’m not saying anything even remotely like that. A minor restriction on my freedom of speech (in place out of respect for WWII victims) does not limit me in my freedom - because I realise why the restriction is there. Again, like I told Screwtape: I’m not asking you to agree with that, I’m merely asking you to respect it.
Furthermore, you’d be surprised how many immigrants are motivated by economic reaons rather than a desire for freedom. So let’s not get esoteric about that.

The United States of America is an interesting country, when issues of freedom are concerned. If your system is so strong (and I think it is, BTW), then explain the following:
[ul][li]“Parental Advisory” stickers on CD’s. Unthinkable in the Netherlands.[/li][li]Dress codes in public schools. That’s your tax money, and they’re telling your kids how to dress?[/li][li]The “beeping” of nasty words in TV shows. What are they afraid of?[/ul][/li]These things lead me to the conclusion that apparently, the faith in that theoretically sound Freedom Preserving System lacks strength in practise.

A closing note. The Dutch Constitution.

That article alone enables the legal attack on Nazi material. And before you say it: Yes. The government (the courts, by extension) can restrict an individuals rights to express his political beliefs when these beliefs are violating one of the above rights for other individuals.

The aim is the same, the approach is different.

39

Having a good time, Daniel?
D’ya want me to look up the word “hyperbole” for you?

40

If I understand this correctly, the only handle France had on Yahoo was the fact that Yahoo had a daughter company in France - paying French taxes, hiring & firing under French law, the works. Like it or not (and in this specific case, I don’t), this daughter company operates under French law and must obey French court rulings. This doesn’t put the Internet under French jurisdiction - it establishes the fact that companies in France are under French jurisdiction.

Yahoo could’ve said “Screw France” (there’s a thought), liquidated its assets and moved. This moronic case doesn’t set a precedence for French sovereignty over the Internet.

The Nazi issue is painful. Gentlemen, nazism hurts. There’s plenty of survivors of this particular infamy over here in Europe, and we owe them.

Personally, I’m in the “bans aren’t necessary, but please try to act dignified” camp (which coincides with my country’s stance on this, BTW), even thouugh this puts me in disagreement with my Dutch friend. I can certainly sympathize with the KZ camp survivor who’d rather not see swastikas paraded around by snotty twenty-year olds.

My country (Denmark, as some will know) has no ban on Nazi symbols, texts etc. - my Danish translation of “Mein Kampf” is in mint condition. We do have some neoNazis, but far from being the menace they’d like to be, they’re buffoonish and incompetent. And allowed to parade themselves as that.

Fear Itself - before you get too carried away with the basic superiority of the American view on free speech - might I remind you that the American Senate as late as last March reached a 63 to 37 vote for amending the constitution to allow prohibiting flag burning ? Not that bloody short of the 67 needed. (And yes, I consider a ban on flag burning censorship.)

You’ve had quite a lot of success so far, and I congratulate you on that, but I fail to see a “fundamental difference”.

capacitor, the freedom of speech is defined differently throughout Europe because we have different constitutions & laws - we are separate countries, after all. And some of us have to battle with laws that reach way back, which makes for muddled interpretations, to say the least. Had we had the chance to rewrite everything a couple of hundred years ago, I believe much would have been clearer.

S. Norman