Re: Singers jailed for lyrics
> A Berlin criminal court sentenced 38-year-old Michael Regener to 40 > months in prison after a six-month trial that tested the boundaries of > free expression in a nation with strict laws against hate speech. Of course, that should be "a nation with strict laws against free speech." Crying "Hate Speech" is the last resort of people who cannot debate what is being said and convince anyone. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"
Re: Singers jailed for lyrics
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 26-Dec-03, at 12:37 PM, Eric Cordian wrote: >> A Berlin criminal court sentenced 38-year-old Michael Regener to 40 >> months in prison after a six-month trial that tested the boundaries of >> free expression in a nation with strict laws against hate speech. > > Of course, that should be "a nation with strict laws against free > speech." > > Crying "Hate Speech" is the last resort of people who cannot debate > what > is being said and convince anyone. > Being from Germany I would like to detest that statement. The German law clearly defines what is hate speech. It is not an easy task as you can see in a six month trial. Certain symbols (e.g. Swastika) are forbidden as well. And I would like to add that most of these laws were made up by the allies (read US and Britain). There is no "ultimate" free speech as the US promises, but let's be serious here for a moment: The US is not as free as people like to think. Michael -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBP+yRcmlCnxcrW2uuEQKDZACfc63XujDFQOJ+bcyGq1xtQc8l1yYAoNd1 vcmRWdOkxly/219fuaNHB/kL =lA06 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Singers jailed for lyrics
"As long as truth is no defense against "hate speech," and "hate speech" includes things which clearly don't involve anyone hating anyone else, "hate speech" is simply a code phrase for suppressing free expression." At worst. At best it's going to boil down to some local enforcement shitheel taking it upon himself to be the arbiter of issues he'll have no ability to comprehend. -TD From: Eric Cordian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Singers jailed for lyrics Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 16:51:38 -0800 (PST) Michael writes: > Being from Germany I would like to detest that statement. > The German law clearly defines what is hate speech. It is not an easy > task as you can see in a six month trial. It is the outcome of the trial which condemns Germany. THe length of the trial is an unimportant data point. THe law clearly defines "hate speech" as the communication of any information which might tend to cause people to be displeased with a particular religious or ethnic group, whether or not the information is true. People in Germany have been jailed under the "hate speech" laws for simply suggesting in written editorials that the Jewish people might act collectively in their own enlightened self-interest. As long as truth is no defense against "hate speech," and "hate speech" includes things which clearly don't involve anyone hating anyone else, "hnate speech" is simply a code phrase for suppressing free expression. > Certain symbols (e.g. Swastika) are forbidden as well. And I would like > to add that most of these laws were made up by the allies (read US and > Britain). Yes, the Allies have done an excellent job of redirecting German jackbooted obnoxiousness back at the German people. Do you have a point here? > There is no "ultimate" free speech as the US promises, but let's be > serious here for a moment: The US is not as free as people like to > think. The US isn't free at all. However, most US citizens support freedom to have opinions and to express them. Germans have to ask their government for permission to think. Most Germans think this is a good thing, by the way. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law" _ Check your PC for viruses with the FREE McAfee online computer scan. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
Re: Singers jailed for lyrics
On Dec 27, 2003, at 10:40 AM, Michael Kalus wrote: That you have extremists who will use the past as the main argument for their reasoning can be clearly seen by your own views. There is no difference between people like you and jews (or any other extreme zealot) who tries to push his or her own agenda. There is in fact a _very_ important difference, one you should think carefully about: the issue of force. In Germany, men with guns arrest those who sing songs which are not PC. I have no such power to use force to arrest those who use words I don't like. This is the essence of liberty. It's all about the initiation of force, versus free choice. In a free system, those who don't want to see swastikas or here "prejudiced" speech will take steps to avoid concerts where such symbols or words are used, will use the "OFF" switch on their radios and televisions when such symbols or speech appears, and will avoid visiting Web sites which offend them. Choice. And responsibility. They may even hire others to act as watchdogs or censors to screen material which may offend them. This is what ratings systems are all about. And closed communities. And voluntary associations. However, in a free society they may not use guns or force to stop what other people are reading or viewing or singing. Think about it. Carefully. Read up on some of the basics. You are on the wrong mailing list if you are as statist as you appear to be. --Tim May
Re: Singers jailed for lyrics
Michael writes: > Being from Germany I would like to detest that statement. > The German law clearly defines what is hate speech. It is not an easy > task as you can see in a six month trial. It is the outcome of the trial which condemns Germany. THe length of the trial is an unimportant data point. THe law clearly defines "hate speech" as the communication of any information which might tend to cause people to be displeased with a particular religious or ethnic group, whether or not the information is true. People in Germany have been jailed under the "hate speech" laws for simply suggesting in written editorials that the Jewish people might act collectively in their own enlightened self-interest. As long as truth is no defense against "hate speech," and "hate speech" includes things which clearly don't involve anyone hating anyone else, "hnate speech" is simply a code phrase for suppressing free expression. > Certain symbols (e.g. Swastika) are forbidden as well. And I would like > to add that most of these laws were made up by the allies (read US and > Britain). Yes, the Allies have done an excellent job of redirecting German jackbooted obnoxiousness back at the German people. Do you have a point here? > There is no "ultimate" free speech as the US promises, but let's be > serious here for a moment: The US is not as free as people like to > think. The US isn't free at all. However, most US citizens support freedom to have opinions and to express them. Germans have to ask their government for permission to think. Most Germans think this is a good thing, by the way. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"
Re: Singers jailed for lyrics
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 > >> The German law clearly defines what is hate speech. It is not an easy >> task as you can see in a six month trial. > > Germany, or any State that restricts words or thought, needs a regime > change > with extreme prejudice. > Then I guess you better start liberating the world. Pretty much any country in the world has a law against hate speech. >> Certain symbols (e.g. Swastika) are forbidden as well. > > Are there exceptions for Buddhists and Amerinds? Moron. All symbols that are related to Nazism. One of the reasons (if not the reason) why they banned "Wolfenstein 3D". > > And I would like >> to add that most of these laws were made up by the allies (read US and >> Britain). > > If so, then Germany should have the balls to discover freedom --adopt > the US Constitution for instance. The US can't counter such a move. They could actually until ~ 10 years ago. Germany (even though considered independend) wasn't. By international law a piece was never brokered, it was just a cease fire. Of course now they could, but Germany still is a bit jumpy about it's past. > >> There is no "ultimate" free speech as the US promises, > > Not in Germany, obviously. In the US, yes. Our founders trusted > the Volk; your conquerors (eg the US) let your shepards (eg your govt) > neuter the sheep (ie you). > Nice... So in the US you have : - - Walmart which censors music to make it "clean". - - Blockbuster who edits movies (or has in the past, not sure if they still do) - - TV Stations who edit movies - - Censors at TV stations who "watch" over the programming. - - What about the FCC who restricts what can be aired? > Fuck censors dead. > I agree. > Freedom is only tested when its unconfortable, baby. > I agree again, but the problem is that even in the good ol'e US of A it is not tested. > Maybe you will find this list too uncomfortable, Kalus. > Doubtful. I don't have an issue with discussion if both sides can get their say. I do not agree that driving people like Nazis into the underground accomplishes anything. Their ideas have to be looked at in the light and then society can answer. Problem with that is: 99% of people give a fuck about discussion or ideas. they want to be told what to do. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBP+zW1WlCnxcrW2uuEQIfqgCcDMvh3WH9dspQ/Tf43a9nT8z521AAnjuO 0aujI5ksmZhQ23+cJNPEzVCZ =K0rP -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Singers jailed for lyrics
At 02:52 PM 12/26/03 -0500, Michael Kalus wrote: >On 26-Dec-03, at 12:37 PM, Eric Cordian wrote: > >>> A Berlin criminal court sentenced 38-year-old Michael Regener to 40 >>> months in prison after a six-month trial that tested the boundaries of >>> free expression in a nation with strict laws against hate speech. >> >> Of course, that should be "a nation with strict laws against free >> speech." >> >> Crying "Hate Speech" is the last resort of people who cannot debate >> what >> is being said and convince anyone. >> >The German law clearly defines what is hate speech. It is not an easy >task as you can see in a six month trial. Germany, or any State that restricts words or thought, needs a regime change with extreme prejudice. >Certain symbols (e.g. Swastika) are forbidden as well. Are there exceptions for Buddhists and Amerinds? Moron. And I would like >to add that most of these laws were made up by the allies (read US and >Britain). If so, then Germany should have the balls to discover freedom --adopt the US Constitution for instance. The US can't counter such a move. >There is no "ultimate" free speech as the US promises, Not in Germany, obviously. In the US, yes. Our founders trusted the Volk; your conquerors (eg the US) let your shepards (eg your govt) neuter the sheep (ie you). Fuck censors dead. Freedom is only tested when its unconfortable, baby. Maybe you will find this list too uncomfortable, Kalus.
Re: Singers jailed for lyrics
On Dec 27, 2003, at 7:52 AM, Michael Kalus wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 27-Dec-03, at 9:53 AM, Tyler Durden wrote: "All symbols that are related to Nazism. One of the reasons (if not the reason) why they banned "Wolfenstein 3D"." Interesting. So even if the swatsika is protrayed as a bad thing (to the point of practically being a bullseye) it's banned. So...can you have swastikas in Textbooks? Perhaps 100 years from now the Holocaust will be forgotten. Of course, that'll make Tim May happy because then it could happen all over again. So a question for you: If I want to write a book on the history of the swastika, or teach about the holocuast in Germany, do I need a license or something? (And let's just assume I have a "politically correct" view.) To my understanding Historical documents are exempt from this. Jew groups have "demanded" that Microsoft modify its symbol font sets to remove swastikas. Part of a CNN report on this flap: "The swastika, which was made infamous by Nazi Germany, was included in Microsoft's "Bookshelf Symbol 7" font. That font was derived from a Japanese font set, said Microsoft Office product manager Simon Marks. "Microsoft said it will release other tools at a later date to remove only the offending characters. "A form of the swastika has been used in the Buddhist religion to symbolize the feet or footprints of the Buddha. The symbol, which was also used widely in the ancient world including Mesopotamia, Scandinavia, India and the Americas, became common in China and Japan with the spread of Buddhism." So, the racialist demands of a sect of dreidl-spinning weirdos is now being used to affect even academic scholarship: the day will soon be upon where swastikas are removed even from Buddhist, Scandinavian, Indian, etc. texts, and where scholars who wish to write about them must blank out they symbol and refer to it as the "s symbol," analogous to the way negroes freely call other negroes "niggers" and "niggaz" and "nigga hoes," but "demand" that whites refer to the words as "the n word." Now that the Jews dominate Germany once again, time for book burning of any book which offends the Jews? --Tim May
Re: Singers jailed for lyrics
"All symbols that are related to Nazism. One of the reasons (if not the reason) why they banned "Wolfenstein 3D"." Interesting. So even if the swatsika is protrayed as a bad thing (to the point of practically being a bullseye) it's banned. So...can you have swastikas in Textbooks? Perhaps 100 years from now the Holocaust will be forgotten. Of course, that'll make Tim May happy because then it could happen all over again. So a question for you: If I want to write a book on the history of the swastika, or teach about the holocuast in Germany, do I need a license or something? (And let's just assume I have a "politically correct" view.) -TD From: Michael Kalus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Major Variola (ret)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> CC: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Singers jailed for lyrics Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 19:48:14 -0500 -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 > >> The German law clearly defines what is hate speech. It is not an easy >> task as you can see in a six month trial. > > Germany, or any State that restricts words or thought, needs a regime > change > with extreme prejudice. > Then I guess you better start liberating the world. Pretty much any country in the world has a law against hate speech. >> Certain symbols (e.g. Swastika) are forbidden as well. > > Are there exceptions for Buddhists and Amerinds? Moron. All symbols that are related to Nazism. One of the reasons (if not the reason) why they banned "Wolfenstein 3D". > > And I would like >> to add that most of these laws were made up by the allies (read US and >> Britain). > > If so, then Germany should have the balls to discover freedom --adopt > the US Constitution for instance. The US can't counter such a move. They could actually until ~ 10 years ago. Germany (even though considered independend) wasn't. By international law a piece was never brokered, it was just a cease fire. Of course now they could, but Germany still is a bit jumpy about it's past. > >> There is no "ultimate" free speech as the US promises, > > Not in Germany, obviously. In the US, yes. Our founders trusted > the Volk; your conquerors (eg the US) let your shepards (eg your govt) > neuter the sheep (ie you). > Nice... So in the US you have : - - Walmart which censors music to make it "clean". - - Blockbuster who edits movies (or has in the past, not sure if they still do) - - TV Stations who edit movies - - Censors at TV stations who "watch" over the programming. - - What about the FCC who restricts what can be aired? > Fuck censors dead. > I agree. > Freedom is only tested when its unconfortable, baby. > I agree again, but the problem is that even in the good ol'e US of A it is not tested. > Maybe you will find this list too uncomfortable, Kalus. > Doubtful. I don't have an issue with discussion if both sides can get their say. I do not agree that driving people like Nazis into the underground accomplishes anything. Their ideas have to be looked at in the light and then society can answer. Problem with that is: 99% of people give a fuck about discussion or ideas. they want to be told what to do. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBP+zW1WlCnxcrW2uuEQIfqgCcDMvh3WH9dspQ/Tf43a9nT8z521AAnjuO 0aujI5ksmZhQ23+cJNPEzVCZ =K0rP -END PGP SIGNATURE- _ Get reliable dial-up Internet access now with our limited-time introductory offer. http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup
Re: Singers jailed for lyrics
On Dec 26, 2003, at 4:48 PM, Michael Kalus wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 The German law clearly defines what is hate speech. It is not an easy task as you can see in a six month trial. Germany, or any State that restricts words or thought, needs a regime change with extreme prejudice. Then I guess you better start liberating the world. Pretty much any country in the world has a law against hate speech. Some do, some don't. The U.S., for all its oft-cited faults, doesn't. It's not a violation of any national or state (California) law to argue that negroes are monkeys, that Germany's main failure was to miss getting the last 100K Jews (the main cause of their problems today, as the dreidl-spinners yammer about Nazism while arguing for socialism), and so on. One or two states in the U.S. tried to implement "hate speech" laws, but the Supremes, in a rare moment when the negroes and Jews were outnumbered, said "Go back and read the First Amendment, you fucking dweebs and Hebes." Certain symbols (e.g. Swastika) are forbidden as well. Are there exceptions for Buddhists and Amerinds? Moron. All symbols that are related to Nazism. One of the reasons (if not the reason) why they banned "Wolfenstein 3D". You've been brainwashed by your Yid masters. The swastika goes back to very, very old Hindu, Buddhist, and Taoist symbology. Hitler read about it in some magazine and adopted it as his own. You make me sick. I hope the ovens are fired up again and you are sent to one for a nice, long, _very_ hot shower. --Tim May
Re: Singers jailed for lyrics
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 27-Dec-03, at 9:53 AM, Tyler Durden wrote: > "All symbols that are related to Nazism. One of the reasons (if not the > reason) why they banned "Wolfenstein 3D"." > > Interesting. So even if the swatsika is protrayed as a bad thing (to > the point of practically being a bullseye) it's banned. > > So...can you have swastikas in Textbooks? Perhaps 100 years from now > the Holocaust will be forgotten. Of course, that'll make Tim May happy > because then it could happen all over again. > > So a question for you: If I want to write a book on the history of the > swastika, or teach about the holocuast in Germany, do I need a license > or something? (And let's just assume I have a "politically correct" > view.) > > To my understanding Historical documents are exempt from this. Wolfenstein was banned in the end because the symbols where used in "Entertainment". If it is a historical drama in which the Symbols appear this seems to be permissible as well. If you put one on your jacket though and walk around with it in the streets they can get you. Michael -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBP+2q3mlCnxcrW2uuEQLSggCfYUtI+BIz6KVZzpWHUyq28DpGEm8AoME9 3OJy6lG0zwAsFacIwujAZswI =/pq7 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Singers jailed for lyrics
On Sat, Dec 27, 2003 at 10:52:57AM -0500, Michael Kalus wrote: > If it is a historical drama in which the Symbols appear this seems to > be permissible as well. If you put one on your jacket though and walk > around with it in the streets they can get you. I guess "The Producers" will never make it to Berlin. It's really funny. Your loss.
Re: Singers jailed for lyrics
On Fri, 26 Dec 2003, Major Variola (ret) wrote: > If so, then Germany should have the balls to discover freedom --adopt > the US Constitution for instance. The US can't counter such a move. I'm sure it would at least as ineffective as the same Constitution is right here in the good ole USA... :-( > >There is no "ultimate" free speech as the US promises, > > Not in Germany, obviously. In the US, yes. We are obviously living in separate (although close to parallel) universes. The USA does NOT practice "free speech" - "ultimate" or otherwise. > Our founders trusted > the Volk; Yes. But the Volken have clearly abdicated this trust, and now the entire mechanism is lost to the sands of history. -- J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Singers jailed for lyrics
On Dec 27, 2003, at 6:53 AM, Tyler Durden wrote: "All symbols that are related to Nazism. One of the reasons (if not the reason) why they banned "Wolfenstein 3D"." Interesting. So even if the swatsika is protrayed as a bad thing (to the point of practically being a bullseye) it's banned. So...can you have swastikas in Textbooks? Perhaps 100 years from now the Holocaust will be forgotten. Of course, that'll make Tim May happy because then it could happen all over again. Nonsense. The problem with the Holocaust was not because people were expressing their opinions about Jews, their habits, etc., or having "un-PC" thoughts about their neighbors. In fact, the so-called anti-Semitism in Germany in the 1920s and 30s was less pronounced than in other European countries, notably France. The issue with the Holocaust, as with the suppression of the Kulaks in Soviet Russia, as with the forced starvation of entire provinces of tens of millions of people by Mao, was directly attributable to STATE POWER. In other words, the problem was that Hitler, Eichmann, Goebbels, etc. could have their bureaucrats meet at Wansee to implement the Final Solution. In a decentralized political system, one with constitutional protections for speech, movement, association, gun ownership, property accumulation, etc., such "purges" and "pogroms" and "final solutions" are much more difficult to carry out. And had the Jews spent more time on self-defense, on matters martial instead of matters Talmudic, they might not have been such easy pickings and gone so readily into the cattle cars headed east. By the way, practically speaking, banning the swastika and outlawing any expression of admiration for Hitler just makes these things more attractive to young kids. Duh. --Tim May, who counts more on the Constitution to limit the power of government (though these limits are falling, year by year) than he does in some ban on putting swastikas in books or on armbands #1. Sanhedrin 59a: "Murdering Goyim (Gentiles) is like killing a wild animal." #2. Aboda Sarah 37a: "A Gentile girl who is three years old can be violated." #3. Yebamoth 11b: "Sexual intercourse with a little girl is permitted if she is three years of age." #4. Abodah Zara 26b: "Even the best of the Gentiles should be killed." #5. Yebamoth 98a: "All gentile children are animals." #6. Schulchan Aruch, Johre Deah, 122: "A Jew is forbidden to drink from a glass of wine which a Gentile has touched, because the touch has made the wine unclean." #7. Baba Necia 114, 6: "The Jews are human beings, but the nations of the world are not human beings but beasts."
Re: Singers jailed for lyrics
At 07:48 PM 12/26/2003 -0500, Michael Kalus wrote: >> Certain symbols (e.g. Swastika) are forbidden as well. > Are there exceptions for Buddhists and Amerinds? Moron. All symbols that are related to Nazism. One of the reasons (if not the reason) why they banned "Wolfenstein 3D". As Tim pointed out, the Swastika symbol had long use before the Nazis picked it up. I remember going into a temple in Guangzhou China which had three large Buddha statues with it on their chests, and some of the Native American cultures prominently weave it into baskets. In Asia it tends to be a sun symbol, or sometimes a moon symbol depending on which way it's pointing; in the Americas it tends to be a whirlwind symbol. If you can drag somebody into court for six months because you don't like their speech, that's a problem too. That doesn't mean that it doesn't happen here in the US too, though more often for speech involving sex than violence, and certainly our new Attorney General John Ashcroft has no particular love for free speech. But you can only throw someone in jail by threatening violence, so it's hypocritical to say you're doing so to eliminate violent speech. A friend of mine was on the city council in a Southern California town where some Ku Klux Klan racist wanted to hold a march. He wasn't from around there, and didn't really have any local support - what he really wanted was for the town to ban his group from marching, so he could sue the town for violating his right to free speech. The town let him march, and had to bring out the police to make sure that nobody attacked him or his five or ten friends while they marched. It was the right thing to do, though she found it very frustrating. Sometimes you just have to let people be [pick an insult here...]
Re: Singers jailed for lyrics
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 27-Dec-03, at 10:31 PM, Tyler Durden wrote: > "As long as truth is no defense against "hate speech," and "hate > speech" includes > things which clearly don't involve anyone hating anyone else, "hate > speech" is simply > a code phrase for suppressing free expression." > > At worst. At best it's going to boil down to some local enforcement > shitheel taking it upon himself to be the arbiter of issues he'll have > no ability to comprehend. > > -TD > > It isn't quite that easy. It is not like any cop can just arrest you, drag you away and lock you up because he thinks you did something wrong. The way this would work out is that someone would have to report you (as the offender) to the cops, they in turn would contact the "Verfassungschutz" which then would investigate and if they consider that something is up they can ask a judge for a warrant. In reality though is there was a huge outcry last year in Germany. A rather right wing party called "NDP" as well as several "Wehrsportgruppen" which (according to the Verfassungschutz) were extremely right and attacking the German consitution, were in effect actually LED by informants of the Verfassungschutz. What this means is: They build the monster they were supposed to "protect" us from. The whole thing still isn't over, Politicians from all colours ask loudly if Germany actually still needs the Verfassungsschutz. That the singer got jailed has happened independently from each other, but to think that the majority of people in Germany are just sheep is as wrong as the idea that all of Germans are Nazis. I find it always interesting how people (especially from the US) seem to have prefabricated ideas about how other countries are, but are at the same time so much in denial about their own society that it is just frightening. One huge difference I have noticed between the US and Germany in particular is that discussions LIKE these are still happening in the mainstream press, not only in the "left" or "right" wing propaganda papers. It might be interresting to note BTW, that the german mainstream right is that mainly likes to use the Verfassungschutz, not so much the left who accepts it but is a lot more critical of it than for example the Bavarian Government. That might have to do with the little fact that in the mid 70s and 80s the left was the main target of them (think Rote Armee Fraktion). Michael -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBP+7e02lCnxcrW2uuEQLQCwCfd+72zy7tRdeg0TVJ9rr4tCW40XUAoMnV GbwK/9fd8UKh55pl/op7SWWF =y2uv -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Singers jailed for lyrics
MK wrote... I find it always interesting how people (especially from the US) seem to have prefabricated ideas about how other countries are, but are at the same time so much in denial about their own society that it is just frightening. Well, that's true. It's a point I've made on Cypherpunks many times, that many economic, political, or legal analeses of other countries (particularly non-Indo-European) only hold up at the surface... My comment was more general, and not necessarily aimed at Germany per se. For instance, there theoretically seems to be laws about everything in Italy, but nobody seems to obey them and they are only enforced half-heartedly, and for as long as it's in vogue to give a crap. Likewise, Communist "Land Reform" in mainland China isn't communist so much as it's Chinese: land reform and nationalisation of salt production and other industries have regularly occurred throughout Chinese history. "Communism" in mainland China was a mask that seemed to last about as long as Mao was alive. (Of course, the hardheads on this list will reply by saying that Chinese culture has always been more "communistic" than other countries, but then this statement ignores just how truly capitalist China has become since 1984 or so. It remains oppressive, of course, if you're discussing the wrong subjects) One huge difference I have noticed between the US and Germany in particular is that discussions LIKE these are still happening in the mainstream press, not only in the "left" or "right" wing propaganda papers. Yes...because we Americans have only had one government, we tend to equate "legality" with morality, and then assume the discussion is over. No doubt that causes us to look at laws "over there" as being far more important than they really are...at least some times. -TD _ Make your home warm and cozy this winter with tips from MSN House & Home. http://special.msn.com/home/warmhome.armx
Re: Singers jailed for lyrics
On Sun, Dec 28, 2003 at 07:16:47PM -0500, Tyler Durden wrote: > However, I doubt I'll go to jail...now. If Bush gets re-elected, then who > knows. For all the violations of the Constitution that the Bush administration has countenanced, it has not been nearly as repressive of political opinions after Sept. 11 as previous regimes did in previous "wars." There are many reasons to worry about Bush being reelected, but political speech doesn't seem to have been tremendously impacted. -Declan
RE: Singers jailed for lyrics
Bill Stewart wrote:
>At 07:48 PM 12/26/2003 -0500, Michael Kalus wrote:
>> >> Certain symbols (e.g. Swastika) are forbidden as well.
>> > Are there exceptions for Buddhists and Amerinds? Moron.
>>All symbols that are related to Nazism. One of the reasons
>>(if not the reason) why they banned "Wolfenstein 3D".
>As Tim pointed out, the Swastika symbol had long use before the
>Nazis picked it up. I remember going into a temple in Guangzhou China
>which had three large Buddha statues with it on their chests,
>and some of the Native American cultures prominently weave it
>into baskets. In Asia it tends to be a sun symbol,
>or sometimes a moon symbol depending on which way it's pointing;
>in the Americas it tends to be a whirlwind symbol.
Vaguely related
I used to live in upper Manhattan. One of the subway stops I
used was the 190th on the IND ("A" train). This burrows deep
under Washington Heights, and has two entrances - a long
tunnel which slopes *down* from the station to an exit near
Broadway, and an elevator up to Fort Washington Avenue. This
section of the line opened in 1932.
The floor of the vestibule of the upper elevator lobby is
laid with geometric patterns in red, white, and black terra
cotta tiles, and when I moved there in the late 70's I was
amused to note that the pattern included 4 swastikas, in
black tiles against a white background, about 4 inches across.
Sometime in the late 80's or early 90's, the swastikas where
chisled out, and the square areas where they had been crudely
filled with concrete.
Ft. Washington Ave by that time had long been an area heavily
populated by immigrant Russian Jews. I often wondered
exactly what chain of events led to this vandalism.
Peter Trei
Re: Singers jailed for lyrics
"Neither is the United States, of course, where US citizens are free to join the Israeli army, and commit atrocities in the illegally occupied territories, but face prison for "terrorism" if they support the oppressed Palestinians and play paintball with their friends on weekends." No real argument here. Moreover, if I "support" (even if only verbally) Palestinian control over Israel, I'm "Anti Semitic" even though the Palestinians are semites, and the Ashkenazi only marginally semitic (they LOOK awfully European to me).* However, I doubt I'll go to jail...now. If Bush gets re-elected, then who knows. As for Germany, for me at least the same government that's forbidding swastikas today in an effort to eliminate "hate" may one day utilize that same power to warp & weave official history (like in Japan and their antics in China from 37 to 45), and all of a sudden everyone is seeing terrorists everywhere who are trying to "steal our freedoms", rather than understanding that if 10 men with families gave their lives to kill 3000 of us, it's at least fair to say that they're rather upset about SOMETHING... At the same time, remember that the Holocaust happened in Germany. And if you were German and realized that your own father was at least partially responsible for baking hundreds of Jews, well...let's just say that would probably weird you out a bit. -TD * I'd note that some of the most outspoken "Anti semites" in this category happen to be Jewish: Bobby Fisher, Noam Chomsky, Michael Albert and others. From: Eric Cordian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Singers jailed for lyrics Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 14:19:27 -0800 (PST) Tyler Durden wrote: > Yes...because we Americans have only had one government, we tend to equate > "legality" with morality, and then assume the discussion is over. No doubt > that causes us to look at laws "over there" as being far more important than > they really are...at least some times. The laws "over there" would only lack importance if they were universally ignored. But they aren't ignored, and they ruin peoples lives, and deprive them of freedom and property everytime someone in some protected class claims to have been offended. When a Jew in Germany gives material support to Israel's reign of terror against the Palestinian people, and someone criticizes it, German law puts the person criticizing it in jail because he made the Jew feel bad. A civilized country would put the Beanie-Headed Land Grabber in jail, and give the critic a medal. Germany is not a civilized country. Neither is the United States, of course, where US citizens are free to join the Israeli army, and commit atrocities in the illegally occupied territories, but face prison for "terrorism" if they support the oppressed Palestinians and play paintball with their friends on weekends. Naziism is National Socialism. Neoconservatism is National Capitalism. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law" _ Enjoy a special introductory offer for dial-up Internet access limited time only! http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup
Re: Singers jailed for lyrics
Tyler Durden wrote: > Yes...because we Americans have only had one government, we tend to equate > "legality" with morality, and then assume the discussion is over. No doubt > that causes us to look at laws "over there" as being far more important than > they really are...at least some times. The laws "over there" would only lack importance if they were universally ignored. But they aren't ignored, and they ruin peoples lives, and deprive them of freedom and property everytime someone in some protected class claims to have been offended. When a Jew in Germany gives material support to Israel's reign of terror against the Palestinian people, and someone criticizes it, German law puts the person criticizing it in jail because he made the Jew feel bad. A civilized country would put the Beanie-Headed Land Grabber in jail, and give the critic a medal. Germany is not a civilized country. Neither is the United States, of course, where US citizens are free to join the Israeli army, and commit atrocities in the illegally occupied territories, but face prison for "terrorism" if they support the oppressed Palestinians and play paintball with their friends on weekends. Naziism is National Socialism. Neoconservatism is National Capitalism. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"
Re: Singers jailed for lyrics
At 07:48 PM 12/26/03 -0500, Michael Kalus wrote: >Then I guess you better start liberating the world. If I were a neocon asshole, I would. Instead, I regard liberation as a local task, and interfering with sovereignty as the initiation of force, ie an act of war. >Nice... So in the US you have : > >- Walmart which censors music to make it "clean". >- Blockbuster who edits movies (or has in the past, not sure if they >still do) >- TV Stations who edit movies >- Censors at TV stations who "watch" over the programming. >- What about the FCC who restricts what can be aired? You need to be clear: only governments can censor. Walmart etc can do whatever they want. That's what private property means. You don't have a right to put your bumper sticker on my car (compelled speech, see the 1st), or prohibit me from putting my sticker on my car. (I just drove 400 miles in a car with the US flag upside down and "Fucked" written over it. Its a magnetic sticker I remove when I travel with my pharmaceutical of choice.) TV stations which exploit the aetherial commons are a tricky case. The government licensors have to be very careful not to induce censorship. >> Fuck censors dead. > >I agree. Well, ok then :-)
Re: Singers jailed for lyrics
-- On 30 Dec 2003 at 17:56, Major Variola (ret) wrote: > If I were a neocon asshole, I would. Instead, I regard > liberation as a local task, and interfering with sovereignty > as the initiation of force, Interfering with sovereignty is not an initiation of force. The ruler has no property right in his subjects or his rule. We are entitled to help our allies against our enemies, an activity that generally interferes with "sovereignty" While liberation is a task that can only be performed by locals, killing enemies is a global mission. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG 8NX/bTVzuEkjsnNDyd8hqD2L1efqNO6qcsqMzWac 4qYCUwCX6Jq61h11ZMgyonG84VSxmT4ogVW1g0OTQ
Re: Singers jailed for lyrics
At 10:52 AM 12/27/03 -0500, Michael Kalus wrote: >> So a question for you: If I want to write a book on the history of the >> swastika, or teach about the holocuast in Germany, do I need a license >> or something? (And let's just assume I have a "politically correct" >> view.) >> >> >To my understanding Historical documents are exempt from this. My "Handbook of Regular Patterns" (Stevens) includes Swastikas under the obvious symmetry group. Do I need a license?
Re: Singers jailed for lyrics
Major Variola (ret) wrote: TV stations which exploit the aetherial commons are a tricky case. The government licensors have to be very careful not to induce censorship. Yet, the FCC has guidelines what can and cannot be aired. Thus no free speech as you claim it to be. Michael
Re: Singers jailed for lyrics
At 05:56 PM 12/30/03 -0800, Major Variola (ret) wrote: At 07:48 PM 12/26/03 -0500, Michael Kalus wrote: >Then I guess you better start liberating the world. If I were a neocon asshole, I would. Instead, I regard liberation as a local task, and interfering with sovereignty as the initiation of force, ie an act of war. Well, clearly bombing and invading them was an initiation of force, in the most literal sense--we shot first. But while I can see that individuals have a right that you violate by initiating force against them, I don't see how that can apply to governments, especially governments whose main method of keeping power involves terrorizing their citizens. Did the Iraqi government have a right to stay in power, or at least not to be invaded? Where did that right come from? From the rights of its people, most of whom apparently didn't have a hell of a lot good to say about it? (That doesn't mean they like *us*, of course.) In the most morally neutral case, this is like one criminal gang attacking another. If the Sopprano family invades the Bozini family's turf, takes over their protection rackets, and hunts down their godfather, it could be messy, and it really will be an initiation of force in the most literal sense. But is this the same kind of "initiation of force" that we normally talk about when, say, a mugger knocks me over the head and takes my laptop and wallet? (And of course, it's not that morally neutral. It's more like a bunch of vigilantes from the neighborhood next door getting rid of the gang running your neighborhood, for reasons of their own, but probably to your benefit.) None of this means it made any sense for us to invade Iraq, or that we did it mainly to liberate oppressed Iraqi citizens. But I think using the same kind of language for interactions between individuals and between governments is a mistake. --John Kelsey, [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP: FA48 3237 9AD5 30AC EEDD BBC8 2A80 6948 4CAA F259
Re: Singers jailed for lyrics
At 05:19 PM 12/31/2003, John Kelsey wrote: > > In the most morally neutral case, this is like one criminal gang attacking > another. If the Sopprano family invades the Bozini family's turf, takes > over their protection rackets, and hunts down their godfather, it could be > messy, and it really will be an initiation of force in the most literal > sense. But is this the same kind of "initiation of force" that we normally > talk about when, say, a mugger knocks me over the head and takes my laptop > and wallet? (And of course, it's not that morally neutral. It's more like > a bunch of vigilantes from the neighborhood next door getting rid of the > gang running your neighborhood, for reasons of their own, but probably to > your benefit.) Although I disagree with the personal benefit aspect, this is the way I view the two major US poltical parties: two mob organizations fighting over turf and tax spoils. I think its time to clean up the D.C. (Augean) Stables. ND
Re: Singers jailed for lyrics
At 08:19 PM 12/31/03 -0500, John Kelsey wrote: >At 05:56 PM 12/30/03 -0800, Major Variola (ret) wrote: >>If I were a neocon asshole, I would. Instead, I regard liberation as a >>local task, and interfering with sovereignty as the initiation of force, >>ie an act of war. > >Well, clearly bombing and invading them was an initiation of force, in the >most literal sense--we shot first. But while I can see that individuals >have a right that you violate by initiating force against them, I don't see >how that can apply to governments, especially governments whose main method >of keeping power involves terrorizing their citizens. (What, you mean like using the US police to deprive us of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?) My neighbors subject their offspring to a kind of abuse commonly called religion. Do I have a right to intercede? They are not harming *me*. Stay out of others family spats. Or as Gen'l W said, Trade with all, make treaties with none, and beware of foreign entanglements. (Mind you, as an reformed Objectivist, I do believe in absolute right and wrong; but does this give me the right to initiate force to clue you in? When do we start bombing Berlin?)
Re: Singers jailed for lyrics
Trei, Peter wrote:
Bill Stewart wrote:
Michael Kalus wrote:
Certain symbols (e.g. Swastika) are forbidden as well.
As Tim pointed out, the Swastika symbol had long use before the
Nazis picked it up.
[...]
Vaguely related
I used to live in upper Manhattan. One of the subway stops I
used was the 190th on the IND ("A" train). This burrows deep
under Washington Heights, and has two entrances - a long
tunnel which slopes *down* from the station to an exit near
Broadway, and an elevator up to Fort Washington Avenue. This
section of the line opened in 1932.
The floor of the vestibule of the upper elevator lobby is
laid with geometric patterns in red, white, and black terra
cotta tiles, and when I moved there in the late 70's I was
amused to note that the pattern included 4 swastikas, in
black tiles against a white background, about 4 inches across.
Sometime in the late 80's or early 90's, the swastikas where
chisled out, and the square areas where they had been crudely
filled with concrete.
Ft. Washington Ave by that time had long been an area heavily
populated by immigrant Russian Jews. I often wondered
exactly what chain of events led to this vandalism.
At least one London Underground station has swastika patterns in
its tiles, and apparently did through the War.
India House in London, the offices of the Indian High Commission
(Commonwealth-speak for "embassy"), has swastikas in the
scupltures on the outside walls, and also in murals inside. They
would have been there right through WW2, the building is from the
1920s and early 30s. I have no idea if anyone covered them up.
http://www.hcilondon.net/aboutus/history-indiahouse.html
Its in the Aldwych, right in the middle of London, passed by
millions of people every year. (Including me on my way to work).
I've never heard of anyone complaining.
RE: Singers jailed for lyrics
From: ken [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Trei, Peter wrote: >> Bill Stewart wrote: >>> Michael Kalus wrote: >>Certain symbols (e.g. Swastika) are forbidden as well. >>>As Tim pointed out, the Swastika symbol had long use before the >>>Nazis picked it up. >[...] >> Vaguely related >>[... swastika censorship in NYC subway tile floor elided...] >At least one London Underground station has swastika patterns in >its tiles, and apparently did through the War. >India House in London, the offices of the Indian High Commission >(Commonwealth-speak for "embassy"), has swastikas in the >scupltures on the outside walls, and also in murals inside. They >would have been there right through WW2, the building is from the >1920s and early 30s. I have no idea if anyone covered them up. >http://www.hcilondon.net/aboutus/history-indiahouse.html >Its in the Aldwych, right in the middle of London, passed by >millions of people every year. (Including me on my way to work). >I've never heard of anyone complaining. I used to walk by India House on my way to college (I went to Kings College London), and I noticed them too. I believe at least one British government ministry used the swastika as a symbol in the early 30's - but can't remember which. There was a bit of a fad for 'runic' symbols back then. Peter
