Germany calls for ban of neo-Nazi sites abroad

The first amendment already has precedent for where we can draw our middle ground: Offensive speech is protected because what is offensive to some is ideology for others BUT if the speech is promoting harm to others or public danger then the speech is not protected. You know the whole example of how you can't yell "Fire!" in a movie theatre? Well you can't also post a site saying "These minorities are our targets" and expect to get away with it. This is the only line that should be drawn because even this power can be abused, and we always need people to criticize and watch the government so they do not abuse their power.

For example, what is considered a public threat could be interpreted by our government to include any information that starts a panic, even aggressive criticism of our government itself.

let the idiots google
'swastika'
if they
so choose.

how about we just let these morons do what they want and we can continue using them as the butt of jokes? I mean come on? are people really that stupid to take this crap seriously? some yes... but thats what makes it a joke.... those few retards who think that way... meh. stupid people in large groups i guess huh? nevermind.

let people say what they want... it's their actions that need questioning. also why are they not trying to fix why people feel the need to join such organizations or act out in such ways? this is a symptom not an illness.

NO to censorship.

Let them say what they want. No one should be censored on the web.

I hate those Nazi scum.

Now, banning website is not a way to get rid of them.

We need to explain what really Nazism was about to kid instead of them finding in web or via friends and find it "cool", ww2 is quite an abstract concept for the new generation.

In Europe any Nazis propaganda/show etc is banned as "nazis is a call to racism and violence"!
that is the best way to censure it, don't make them martyrs, underground, just show they real face, down stupid racist small dicks heinous dumd cunts

This is treading into a gray area.

One side would be a proponent to this resolution due to what happened during WWII. They still to murder all Jews and continue to oppress the minorities (basically, anything non-white).

But on the other hand, according to our Constitution and that laws that we go by, it is a clear violation of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

In my opinion, I believe in the latter. It may be an American ideology (or, at least in theory), but I believe should have the right to say whatever they want as long as they do not act out on it. The assessment of the likelihood of carrying out their comments and threats should indicate whether or not they should be charged for a type of offense.

I hope there's more people who see, than do not, that banning unpopular speech is a slippery slope. What are you going to do when what YOU have to say is outlawed? The way to deal with this kind of thing is to say something better. Why we don't know by now that silencing unpopular speech is dangerous and just doesn't work is beyond me. Grow up and deal with the world like an adult!

Much as I despise Neo-Nazis ( something to do with recalling the millions of Allied fighters and merchant seamen who went to their deaths ) - there is no level playing field as long as Big Media can flog hate of ( pick one ) gays - users of birth control - atheists - 'Leftists' - Muslims - Blacks - the Poor - Trade Unionists - immigrants.... whatever flavor of the day makes it easier to deny someone is really human.
Calling oneself 'Christian' while promoting Theocracy ( he was killed by one ) isn't any better than listening to the poison spewed by the likes of Rush Limbaugh.
Love Thy Neighbour does not mean 'Kill the Asshole while you can!'

Well, consider this. I am an Atheist living in the United States. I am also Gay living in the United States. It doesn't take a political scientist to see how intertwined the church is in politics in this country. I would see it this way (though this is in no way a good comparison): Say the government decided to ban all Atheist sites because they believe that all Atheists are inherently "evil" beings who prostitute and sacrifice animals. So, they ban all Atheist web-sites. It is not really fair.

Let us look at another example of a ban. The Holocaust happened, no one can deny it did. We have countless reports from soldiers who entered Germany, we have a fair amount of physical evidence, we have a fair amount of photographs and letters. Again, it would be scientifically foolish to deny it happened. However, thanks to the ban that many countries have, if anyone questions something so small as the number of deaths that occurred or the exact function of one or two of the labor/death/internment camps, then they are (thanks to a ban) publicly ostracized (with the label of "Anti-semite" or "a Holocaust Denier" or something of the sort) and/or fined and/or imprisoned. Is that really a fair thing to do when we as human are inquisitive and it is our very nature to question anything official? Generally, we do not just accept things, as a species.

Many placed this ban on inquiring about the Holocaust in the same, well-meaning, fashion as this story. It's a terrible thing people do not want to see or hear about and many (those that had a direct personal connection) thought that, somehow, questioning any of the official reports was denying that the whole thing even happened and was somehow against their loved one who died.

Yes, it is just web-pages/images. But, in banning something, you have to ask yourself "Where exactly does it stop?" and "Can it even stop once you have begun?". You can't think about the reason behind the ban. All you can do is think about human nature and answer that question.

*Disclaimer*
I, wholeheartedly believe that the Holocaust happened and I am not a denier. I am not a Neo-Nazi nor any supremacist. I just wish to harbor free-though and completely open and honest inquiry. (for some reason I have to defend myself because it is too easy to be labeled in today's time).

sure let them defend and police themselves. sounds like a fair deal. "Somebody different, a reason to fight" (SLC Punk) If they are surrounded by themselves who are they going to hate, right? Then if they cause harm to anyone it would be a national incident and would be held fully responsible. Sounds good xizm It really is true, You gotta keep um separated! Some may say segregation! segregation! but look at it this way they dont want to be in black neighborhoods. I am just gonna go ahead and say for the blacks and other ethnicities that they dont want them either. So why would this be so bad. Forced to mingle with cultures that are notoriously at odds is just playing with matches. Let them watch their hate stuff. Let the black panthers be black panthers. Pretending that they dont exist isnt going to work. I had black roomies when I was in foster care. I dont have any friends now. I doubt that any of them now in this hot climate would associate with me anyhow because of this hot political climate. That and I am just a real Prick. But anyhow say whatever you want its good for you. " let that hate out"

In related news, German government officials said that they would begin a new program to protect German citizen from any future rise of Nazi-ism in their homeland by rounding up all Neo Nazis, Nazi sympathizers or anyone of Nazi descent, and relocating them to a nice "gated community in the forests of Poland" where they will be "made free by their labor".

But the truth of the matter is that if people can't find there favorite flavor of hate, they'll just find or create a new one.

Check the link to see what I mean: http://alturl.com/hctp

They should not forbid Nazi symbols from being displayed on the internet. Rather, they should arrest those that claim to be Nazi, and trial them (UN court).

If the Nazi waged war against the rest of the world (WWII), and someone is found to be Nazi, he/she is also in war with the rest of the world. The war is not over!

Yeahhh, wouldn't work so well. There are multiple religions that utilize some form of the swastika in which it does not have harmful connotations.

So even if the move to ban it was well intentioned, it would have immediate adverse affects. What about all the people practicing religions that DO use the swastika in positive ways?

I dont think they should ban the nazi sites. Do i agree with their message? absolutely not. But as humans they have a right to express thier opinions, even if they are hateful. I believe in freedom of speech/press in its entirety. Censorship wont help anything. I dont like this type of censorship for 2 reasons.

1) People that are not familiar with the nazis need to know they exist. Even if they dont agree with the message, these pages should be open to the public so others can at least read about their views. That way people will know that there are still many people in this world that do hate, and that we have a long way to go in stopping this ignorance. Im black, but ive been to a few KKK websites. I definately dont agree with their organization, but Im the type of person that does not believe what people tell me about other people, so I wanted some first hand knowledge. Im glad websites like that are on the internet, like i said, it shows how far we need to go and gives a sense of reality. Racists exist, and in large numbers.

2) Will censorship really help? I dont think so. It certainly wont change the fact that the nazis are racist/anti-semites. Only education and exposure to other cultures can defeat ignorance. Censorship is just a reaction to a much greater problem. I think education and exposure early on will nip ignorance in the bud. Discriminating against people who disciminate is still discrimination. Hating hateful people is hating as well. It doesnt solve anything, and I feel that it perpetuates the problem by giving these organizations fuel for their fire. The nazis can then say something like, "see they hate us too, so thats just one more reason to hate them back." And thus a vicious cycle begins.

All in all I dont think this is a rational road to go down. Freedom of speech for all!!!!

The ironic thing is that many of these people that join Neo-Nazi groups would have probably been considered scum by Hitler himself...

running them over, wrong answer. Hitler was one of these people that was just ran over and over again, figuratively. End of story People died. Lots of people died. The Plague of communism had spread through his country and he had an answer. Death. How should we deal with them, yeah lets repress them so they can kill us in the future. They might be fascists but they are not dumb. Once they start stringing them up call me.

we are a society obessessed with the "shocking and the bizzare"..the Jackass style satire (bruno and borat)...

then when shit hits the fan..blame bush or blame the jews or blame the catholics...

They should just call the blues brothers to run over all the neo natzis problem solved

its a given..us americans have the right to express ourselves however we have laws and guidelines that if you cross that line you will be dealt with..BUT the hip and uber stylish hollywood liberals had blurred that line..making it POLITICALLY INCORRECT to deal with groups of people who recklessly abause this right

The paradox of toleration and a tolerant society: what to do with the intolerant?

@Sam_the_Wizer has a great point. How often in history have we seen the allure of something once a society has made it taboo. Many think that's exactly why Germany is seeing a (probably still pretty small) an upsurge in neo-Nazi youth.

Don't give attention to things you don't want to see.

Madonna knew what she was doing when she did the pepsi commercial with the cross. The kind of attention she got for that was exactly what the christian groups didn't want. Every time I see any moral group speaking against something it gets stronger. Resistance does this naturally. So really think about what you are doing with censorship. Too much corruption can happen as a result.

We don't all believe the same things so we need to think of something else that will foster peace. Something that works for all of us, not just some special groups of people - that's never fair. You'll only make the other people mad and strengthen the conflict. Not what any of us want, so - let's think of something more positive for a change.

This isnt indiginous to germany. This is happening globally. Look at the other posts referring to china Iran ect. Progression of freedom is not progressing it is receding. THis is all done in an attempt to control the thoughts of the public. Keeping them blind. Access to information like the internet is counteractive to a repressive government. It apposes their plans to have the herds of people only buy the products they want them to buy and keep the people in a one track mind state. Meanwhile an illusion of patriotism is held for shopping at stores like Wall mart. I got news for you, Sam Walton is dead. Wall mart and everything else in majority is publicly traded. The governments dont want us seeing other cultures. They have plans for us as a whole and it is counteractive to the christian majority. It has been said time after time that America is a "christian society" Blind patriotism an refusal to acept anything other than your own. "But the towers." what the media doesnt tell you is the presidents invovment in saudi oil and the Bin Laden Family. When was the last time you saw something on American TV that wasn't totally Americanized. Since 911 it gave the president the fuel to repress and become extreamly introverted.

Shit let's ban people from existence. Then we don't have to worry about morals and ethics and hate and the internet.

The issues here are not what is right and what is wrong. It is fairly common knowledge that American law practices a nearly absolutist interpretation to freedom of speech, while Germany limits freedom of speech against organizations it defines as hate groups and religious cults. Where this gets interesting is when Germans in Germany access American internet sites. This raises the question, who is breaking the German law, the individual accessing the American site, or the American site that is providing the information for Germans?

What is funny to me is how this isn't an issue for companies like Hulu or BBC Steaming Video. It is funny how nobody has any problem at all blocking information in entire counties when licensing and intellectual property rights are at stake. Oh, money, FREEZE THEM OUT! But when it comes to supposed freedom of information, then everybody wrings their hands. The answer seems abundantly simple to me: Those sites are illegal in Germany, so block them out in Germany, but allow them in the States.

Man, what an interesting debate this has spawned. Banning these sites is not going to keep there from being neo-nazis. If anything banning it makes it more alluring, and will likely make those people who are curious become more interested.

Lets just face it. We are all sheep in the flock of shepherd. This shepherd doesn't care that we all can see that we are being led along. He doesnt care because he knows we cant fight back. Led to slaughter. Its sad really eventualy the class system will go right back to slavery but we will be all blind to see it. Fractured education system. ( slaves where not allowed to read ) Scarce jobs. (shure you can have a job Come pick some cotton ! yay) cost of stock market downturn. ( we dont want people to actually own anything do we?) dont like cotton? join the military ( free boatride, and they give us jobs and shelter, sound familiar) dress code ( Only the king can where purple, this symbol is reserved for the emperor ect) Bright yellow sunshine everywhere ( Juden anyone?)

Dark ages, everyone turned to the church. THats exactly what they are leading us to. These people are just mad that the goverment is actualy trying to plummet us into this state. I am too

While I do not support some wacko chuch protesting at soldiers funerals,or hate mongers of any sort,in a free society they have as much right to be heard as you do.Once censorship starts where do you stop?If something offends some other segment of the population should it be banned? We,the people have lost sight of what freedom truly means and our government has ripped the constitution to shreads with the Patriot Act! In a truly free society all things are possible but without freedom you have nothing!

There was a great NY Times story a while back about Google's team that works with different governments around the world who wanted access to certain videos blocked on YouTube. Turkey, for example, is not a big fan of videos referencing the Armenian Genocide.

As the Internet can't easily be confined and regulated by domestic boundaries do you think we'll see a push in the future for a global ethical/moral standard for online content?

[I'm going to go ahead and feature this story so we can get some more voices in the conversation.]

censorship of any sort is unacceptable for any reason! its all about freedom which the EU and the US governments are quickly taking away! I may not like the message[nazi's as an example] but believe everyone has a right to be heard in any case!

OH, great idea.

Let's also ban GAY sites, so Muslims are not offended.
And let's ban Christian sites, so the atheists and Muslims are not offended.
And let's ban Women's sites, because the Taliban think women belong in chains.

And how far right is "far right"?
Gotta ban Girt Wilders, he's an "extremist".
Well, then ban Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly. Ban Michael Savage (already did).

Why stop there?

Ban any site that promotes capitalism.
Shut down the Wall Street Journal.
Close Washington Post.

Ban any site that disagrees with Global Warming (hey, there is no debate, right? They're flat earthers, and if we just have enough "political will" we can silence the dissenters like Churchill did the Nazis--thanks Al Gore for that brilliant analysis)

Why stop with Internet sites? Shut down Fox.

COme on, ya'll. Who else should we just ban?

People should be protesting the christian cross. That symbol has killed more jews than the Nazis yet people still where it around all proud. It even has a dead jew on it. I can see why it would scare people. This is just what you should exspect after a bush presidency and the "Mickey Mouse Club" atmosphere of the present. You cant kill hate, the government is faking the funk and the people can see that and are angry. In this society there is only one way to be, corperate, docile, and neutered. I just see the government taking more and more controll everyday and will hardly anyone aposing. I see this as just a big middle finger to the government. Nothing quite like a shwastica to make them see that their shit doesn't stink. (excuse my french) Everyday I see this image on television on how we are supposed to look eat, have sex, and think. "little boxes on the hillside, little boxes....." I just dont want to consume anymore. I want to have a job that wont hire me and fire me the same day. I dont want to buy anything from QVC. im dronning sorry .... thats it..

i believe it should be censored due to the fact that it is a propanganda for hate, freedom of speech is tolerated until the rights of others are violated suhc as peace of mind..

YES! Even though I know censorship is highly unpopular with people on the Internet (case in point, see galwayman above), I really do not see the purpose for material whose only purpose is to solicit hate. Ideologues can call the banning of hate speech "fascism" all they want, but the truth is that it makes the world a better place by making it harder for hateful beliefs to be spread.

This is funny given that the EU has moved to take away freedom! its also funny given that the Patriot Act here allows them to lock us up ,without trial for any reason! facism and the police state are here people and the elite seek to distract you with nonsense like this! I'd be laughing if I wasn't crying for the loss of our freedom which the people traded away for security!

1st amendment...so tricky!

Afitzgerald brings up some great questions. Personally, I don't think hate sites should be tolerated. But legally, I don't know of any precedent that would allow the banning of sites.

Interesting story. A great question of the legality of information in an incredibly connected world. Another side of the China-blocking-porn-sites story. Does it make sense to censor content like this? Is there a line you can draw between decency and freedom of information?