Slashdot Mirror


Wolfenstein Being Recalled In Germany

D1gital_Prob3 tips news that Activision's recently-released shooter, Wolfenstein, is being recalled in Germany due to the appearance of swastikas in the game. Such symbols are banned in Germany, and the German version of the game went through heavy editing to remove them. Apparently, they missed some. Activision said, "Although it is not a conspicuous element in the normal game ... we have decided to take this game immediately from the German market." Reader eldavojohn points out a review that has screenshot comparisons between the two versions of the game.

625 comments

  1. Differences between versions by sopssa · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here's a huge list of screenshots of differences between uncensored and german version

    Some of the changes I found a little fun too, like the hand.

    It's also interesting that the game is 18+ and germans are still not allowed to see any blood.

    Here's the texture they apparently forgot to modify.

    Seeing how many changes to the game and to the textures they've had to do, I'm not that surprised something that small slipped in.

    The interesting thing now is if they're gonna remove that texture, remaster, repackage and send the new ones to all stores again, even more so because the game is over an month old now and the best sales are already gone.

    1. Re:Differences between versions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Beyond the obvious problems with censorship in general, this kind of "censorship" where superficial elements are removed while keeping the overall spirit and subject matter of the game (come on, who wouldn't figure out looking at those obfuscated Nazi banners what the REAL symbol is supposed to mean) is abous as ridiculous as Japanese censorship laws, where you can make the most perverted porn than any other country in the world, but must superficially pixelate certain parts.

      If you are not willing to forgo censorship alltogether, at least do it "right". What's done here detracts from immersion while serving absolutely no purpose towards whatever your censorship laws are trying to serve (unless their purpose is to ruin immersion, that is)

    2. Re:Differences between versions by oldspewey · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I have to agree here. If a nazi-themed game runs afoul of German law, then simply don't sell the game there.

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    3. Re:Differences between versions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The interesting thing now is if they're gonna remove that texture, remaster, repackage and send the new ones to all stores again, even more so because the game is over an month old now and the best sales are already gone.

      They ought to simply say "We'll address that in the next patch." and leave it at that.

      If German authorities want to get bitchy about it then Activision could simply point out publicly that the portion of the content being complained about is some ridiculously tiny fraction of the entire content in the game. e.g. "The content of the game when rendered in its entirety comprises some 60 billion pixels. The objectionable swastikas take up approximately 5000 pixels of that amount."

    4. Re:Differences between versions by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Here's a huge list of screenshots of differences between uncensored and german version

      Wow how did you ever find that link? Did you actually read the summary or something?

      The interesting thing now is if they're gonna remove that texture, remaster, repackage and send the new ones to all stores again, even more so because the game is over an month old now and the best sales are already gone.

      German law Strafgesetzbuch Section 86:

      Dissemination of Means of Propaganda of Unconstitutional Organizations (1) Whoever domestically disseminates or produces, stocks, imports or exports or makes publicly accessible through data storage media for dissemination domestically or abroad, means of propaganda: 1. of a party which has been declared to be unconstitutional by the Federal Constitutional Court or a party or organization, as to which it has been determined, no longer subject to appeal, that it is a substitute organization of such a party; [...] 4. means of propaganda, the contents of which are intended to further the aims of a former National Socialist organization, shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine. [...] (3) Subsection (1) shall not be applicable if the means of propaganda or the act serves to further civil enlightenment, to avert unconstitutional aims, to promote art or science, research or teaching, reporting about current historical events or similar purposes. [...] Section 86a StGB Use of Symbols of Unconstitutional Organizations (1) Whoever: 1. domestically distributes or publicly uses, in a meeting or in writings (Â 11 subsection (3)) disseminated by him, symbols of one of the parties or organizations indicated in Section 86 subsection (1), nos. 1, 2 and 4; or 2. produces, stocks, imports or exports objects which depict or contain such symbols for distribution or use domestically or abroad, in the manner indicated in number 1, shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine. (2) Symbols, within the meaning of subsection (1), shall be, in particular, flags, insignia, uniforms, slogans and forms of greeting. Symbols which are so similar as to be mistaken for those named in sentence 1 shall be deemed to be equivalent thereto.

      Note: I do not agree with the German governments staunch policy against symbols but they're free to govern as they see fit (pending the EU's approval). If they want to keep selling the game in Germany, they might want to uphold German laws. I don't know how many gamers are in Germany but they have a population of about 82 million and I think that it's a safe bet some "texture, remaster, repackage" can be afforded for that market.

      --
      My work here is dung.
    5. Re:Differences between versions by KillerBob · · Score: 1

      Um... weren't some of the in-game maps on Wolfenstein shaped like swastikas? Even if they removed the textures that had swastikas on them, wouldn't that still count?

      --
      If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
    6. Re:Differences between versions by tokul · · Score: 1

      Here's the texture they apparently forgot to modify [schnittberichte.com]. Seeing how many changes to the game and to the textures they've had to do, I'm not that surprised something that small slipped in. The interesting thing now is if they're gonna remove that texture, remaster, repackage and send the new ones to all stores again, even more so because the game is over an month old now and the best sales are already gone.

      Maybe they can also fix other mistakes. Shooter should not use MP40's magazine as handhold.

    7. Re:Differences between versions by liegeofmelkor · · Score: 1

      I take it you've never had a conversation with a German bureaucrat. Come to think of it, neither have I... a conversation would imply a two-way exchange of information.

    8. Re:Differences between versions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow how did you ever find that link? Did you actually read the summary or something?

      It wasn't there at first, and I found it from same place you probably did: the article ;)

    9. Re:Differences between versions by The+Ultimate+Fartkno · · Score: 4, Funny

      Official notice. From this day forward, right angles are verboten. Enjoy your ellipses, damen und herren.

    10. Re:Differences between versions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >They ought to simply say "We'll address that in the next patch." and leave it at that.

      The problem with that approach is that it ends up causing their distributors to lose the privilege of doing business in Germany at all, not just for that one product.
      Not that I agree with the law on this. It's still accepted in much of Germany to be anti-semitic, so long as you don't actually harm someone, or use symbols of Nazi-ism.
      Basically with the zealous laws they create a taboo culture that, of course, encourages people to bend. (You don't get punks before stupid rules, only after.)

    11. Re:Differences between versions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The pixelization thing is probably the reason why some japanese porn gets so perverted. They need something extra to get the blood pumping since the good bits are pixelated out. Same as all other stupid vice laws and prohibitions the world over.

    12. Re:Differences between versions by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think the anti-Nazi laws made sense in the first decade or two after the end of WWII, and maybe an argument can be made right through the Cold War, but come on. Is there anybody out there who seriously still has a Thatcheristic fear that they'll be burning the Reichstag again?

      Yes, there are some neo-Brown Shirt skin heads out there, and all the anti-Nazi symbolism laws in Germany and Austria haven't seemed to put much of a dent in them. Short of shooting anyone who looks remotely like a Hitler lover, I think the time has come and gone when the laws could be justified.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    13. Re:Differences between versions by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Funny

      You forgot to capitalize "Damen" and "Herren". Yeah I know I'm being nitpicky. ;-)

      I find it interesting the EU States can ban images within a videogame, and the publisher MUST comply with that restriction. I wonder if the same could happen with a US State? Could California declare "no more swastikas" and force Activision to edit California editions of Wolfenstein, or would the U.S. overrule that decision? If yes, could the EU eventually overrule Germany's law?

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    14. Re:Differences between versions by pete-classic · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Sure, but they'd have to succeed first, so as to escape the restrictions of the Bill of Rights.

      -Peter

    15. Re:Differences between versions by pete-classic · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Whoops. Secede.

      -Peter

    16. Re:Differences between versions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They did it with cars and the california emmisions standards (eventually the rest of the country caught up).

    17. Re:Differences between versions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      U.S. Law would overrule it; specifically, the U.S. Constitution forbids the government from having laws like that. If California wanted a law to ban swastikas, the whole U.S. would have to amend the constitution first.

    18. Re:Differences between versions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      jawolllol

    19. Re:Differences between versions by nametaken · · Score: 0

      Why not? California can declare draconian emissions controls on cars and motorcycles and the manufacturers have to comply if they want to sell there.

    20. Re:Differences between versions by discogravy · · Score: 5, Funny

      You forgot to capitalize "Damen" and "Herren". Yeah I know I'm being nitpicky. ;-)

      I think you mean that you're being a "Grammar [REDACTED IN GERMANY]"

    21. Re:Differences between versions by scorp1us · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Mod parent insightful, not funny. Seriously though, Buddhism used the swastika (usually a mirror image though) . This was done up until Germany rendered it a vile symbol. Before that it meant good fortune and other positive things. Men give these symbols meaning. The geometry is indifferent.

      --
      Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
    22. Re:Differences between versions by bcmm · · Score: 1

      I think the issue is with where to draw the line. Obviously, someone shouldn't be allowed to fly the flag of Nazi Germany outside their house, as that would be extremely intimidating to anyone living nearby who belongs to any of the groups Nazis don't like. By banning the swastika nearly outright, they avoid situations where someone could claim it was there for some artistic, ironic reason.

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    23. Re:Differences between versions by SoVeryTired · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The trouble is, laws like this are incredibly difficult to get rid of. What politician wants to stand up and denounce such a law, at the risk of looking like a Nazi sympathiser?

      --
      Slashdot: news for Apple. Stuff that Apple.
    24. Re:Differences between versions by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Warning: mysql_connect(): Too many connections in /home/sc003clu/www/home/includes/config.php on line 67

      Warning: Missing argument 1 for showerror() in /home/sc003clu/www/home/includes/config.php on line 93
      Fehler 1040 : Too many connections

      Gotta 3 /.

      But, IMO, it's about time to start letting that censorship crap go. Really. Apparently, the game is perfectly legal and acceptable all around the world, except Germany. After 6 decades it's just time to move on. And, no, "moving on" doesn't mean forgetting the lessons of the past - it only means accepting the lessons, then moving on. Nothing more, nothing less.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    25. Re:Differences between versions by Dayze!Confused · · Score: 5, Informative

      Umm, I live in Taiwan and I can let you know that they still use a reversed swastika. I see it on every Buddhist temple (which is quite a lot) and on some of the more traditional residences. It's only a religious symbol to them here, most people don't even know that the Nazi party used it.
          Of course, these are the same people that think the word playboy means rabbit and have no idea of the brand's link to the porn industry. Gotta love Asian culture.

      --
      "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." [Thomas Jefferson]
    26. Re:Differences between versions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'm going to be brutally honest, at the risk of sounding like a conspiracy nut: I assumed that the symbolism of Nazism was still banned so that, if ever the country went down a similar road, they would at least never*look*like Nazis again,and would in the process of nazification be able to point to the fact that Nazi symbolism etc was still banned.

      In fact, while a swastika can be intimidating, what was dangerous was a group of people acting on certain ideals. So it would be much better if the ideological descendants of those people, trying to act on those ideals again, would do it openly with all the symbolism that reminds us of why we didn't like them the first time round.

    27. Re:Differences between versions by gnasher719 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think the issue is with where to draw the line. Obviously, someone shouldn't be allowed to fly the flag of Nazi Germany outside their house, as that would be extremely intimidating to anyone living nearby who belongs to any of the groups Nazis don't like. By banning the swastika nearly outright, they avoid situations where someone could claim it was there for some artistic, ironic reason.

      Actually, it wouldn't be intimidating. If you tried this (and it was legal), I can guarantee that the flag, the flagpole, the garden fence, your windows and many other things would be gone very soon.

    28. Re:Differences between versions by hansraj · · Score: 1

      I am not entirely certain that the "non-sanitized" version of the game would have drawn flak from legal quarters in Germany. Sure, display of the nazi symbols are prohibited generally but I am sure there are exceptions made depending on the context. For example, you can burn a swastika flag without trouble, or you can wear an anti-nazi shirt with a red bar across the swastika. Quite often in movies and TV shows they use nazi costumes for nazi characters.

      That said, I think holding an opinion sould not be a crime no matter how repulsive the opinion might be to somebody.

    29. Re:Differences between versions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      California apparently tried to ban the terms Master and Slave in reference to IT a few years ago.

    30. Re:Differences between versions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aye.... here we have a game that involves "killing the Nazis" and they still won't allow them to be properly displayed. wth? How is this better than history erasure? What do they do with a movie like Valkyrie? (o wait, Scientologist in the lead role, problem solved... :P)

      Actually, I wonder how Buddhists and some South Asian religions fare since the "broken crosses" are standard symbology for religious sites (Hitler simply co-opted it for his Aryan mythology).

    31. Re:Differences between versions by harks · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Jean Plantureux, the political cartoonist from France's Le Monde newspaper, came to talk to my college a few years back and explained that due to anti-Nazi laws they couldn't draw any swastikas on anyone. So what they do if they want to say somebody's a Nazi is they draw them with an armband with a white circle on it. Everyone knows exactly what the white circle means.

    32. Re:Differences between versions by smithmc · · Score: 1

      Because auto emissions are not a First Amendment issue; swastikas are.

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
    33. Re:Differences between versions by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 3, Funny

      Why do you assume the neighbors would be intimidated instead of outraged? They should be allowed. That way the neighbors can remind them what happens to nazis in the end.

    34. Re:Differences between versions by starfliz · · Score: 1

      I don't think they made sense even right after the war. Repressing speech does not solve problems. Running away or hiding problems doesn't work. Although we have been trying for thousands of years. If someone is an intolerant bastard they should be able to stand up and proclaim it so society can mock and shun them. We don't need laws to make everyone feel that the problem is dealt with appropriately.

    35. Re:Differences between versions by KDR_11k · · Score: 0

      I'd rather have a censored game than no game at all.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    36. Re:Differences between versions by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      The most annoying example I can think of was Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, the book signing scene. In the movie you see the swastikas and such, in the matching videogame the swastikas are censored.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    37. Re:Differences between versions by Marauder2 · · Score: 1

      I find it interesting the EU States can ban images within a videogame, and the publisher MUST comply with that restriction. I wonder if the same could happen with a US State? Could California declare "no more swastikas" and force Activision to edit California editions of Wolfenstein, or would the U.S. overrule that decision? If yes, could the EU eventually overrule Germany's law?

      Except the EU does not have this pesky little "First Amendment" that the US does which, among other things, guarantees one's right to "freedom of speech" no matter how deplorable that speech might be. If any government in the US (be it the state of California, or our favorite disbarred activist/lawyer Jack Thompson) tried to get something like that banned, they would quickly get their head handed back to them by the Federal Court system. That would not prevent, say, WalMart from banning it within their stores as they are not a government entity. WalMart is known to often ban particularly vulgar or otherwise similarly NSFW music CD's in order to at least appear to be more "family friendly", as a result labels will often be "forced" to publish a sanitized for WalMart in order to be stocked (WalMart is the largest brick and mortar music retailer).

      As far as the EU goes, I'm not terribly familiar with their government structure in terms of at what levels the EU governance overrides local governance, but while the member nations are in large part handing much of their sovereignty over to the EU parliament, they still maintain some level of independence (something we lost in the United States after the Civil War when the transition from what was a loose confederacy of states to an even more powerful centralized federal governing system was really solidified. I see Europe headed in a similar direction).

      Sadly, the government of Germany, and apparently the people of Germany as a whole seem to still be sensitive about their involvement in the World Wars and in the Nazi regime to the point that such censorship is widely supported. There is plenty of Nazi/Racist sentiment within Germany in large part because of cultural aspects and "generational racism" where feelings and attitudes are passed down from parent, and grandparent, to child, but like we see in other forms of prohibition, such as alcohol in the 20's and drugs today, the fact that it is forbidden can make it more attractive, exciting, and "adventurous" to some.

      I'm sure most here on Slashdot will agree that while such Neo-Nazi and racist sentiment such as the movements in Germany are "A bad thing (TM)", the proper action isn't to ignore the past and censor/ban any sort of expression that even appears to possible in some remote way relate to it, but rather to encourage an open discussion and exchange of ideas like the First Amendment in the United States was written to ensure.

      I find it ironic that a region (Europe) that tries to be so "progressive" in many areas, become real stick-in-the-mud's in other areas such as German censorship laws, French cryptography laws, British firearm laws, etc.

    38. Re:Differences between versions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quick, ban the internet too!
      Knock down any buildings that look like the 'evil' swastika from above!

      www.onethirdoftheholocaust.com
      www.codoh.com

      The Jews obviously run Germany. Which is why they were KICKED OUT in the first place. How dare Hitler remove Germany from the international banking cartels' grip...

      http://www.poketheeye.org/?p=210

      "When Hitler came to power, Germany was hopelessly broke. The Treaty of Versailles had imposed crushing reparations on the German people, demanding that Germans repay every nationâ(TM)s costs of the war. These costs totaled three times the value of all the property in Germany. Private currency speculators caused the German mark to plummet, precipitating one of the worst runaway inflations in modern times. A wheelbarrow full of 100 billion-mark banknotes could not buy a loaf of bread. The national treasury was empty. Countless homes and farms were lost to speculators and to private banks. Germans lived in hovels. They were starving.

      Nothing like this had ever happened before â" the total destruction of the national currency, plus the wiping out of peopleâ(TM)s savings and businesses. On top of this came a global depression. Germany had no choice but to succumb to debt slavery under international bankers until 1933, when the National Socialists came to power.

      At that point the German government thwarted the international banking cartels by issuing its own money. World Jewry responded by declaring a global boycott against Germany. Hitler began a national credit program by devising a plan of public works that included flood control, repair of public buildings and private residences, and construction of new roads, bridges, canals, and port facilities. All these were paid for with money that no longer came from the private international bankers.

      The projected cost of these various programs was fixed at one billion units of the national currency. To pay for this, the German government (not the international bankers) issued bills of exchange, called Labor Treasury Certificates. In this way the National Socialists put millions of people to work, and paid them with Treasury Certificates. Under the National Socialists, Germanyâ(TM)s money wasnâ(TM)t backed by gold (which was owned by the international bankers). It was essentially a receipt for labor and materials delivered to the government. Hitler said, âoeFor every mark issued, we required the equivalent of a markâ(TM)s worth of work done, or goods produced.â The government paid workers in Certificates. Workers spent those Certificates on other goods and services, thus creating more jobs for more people. In this way the German people climbed out of the crushing debt imposed on them by the international bankers.

      Within two years, the unemployment problem had been solved, and Germany was back on its feet. It had a solid, stable currency, with no debt, and no inflation, at a time when millions of people in the United States and other Western countries (controlled by international bankers) were still out of work. Within five years, Germany went from the poorest nation in Europe to the richest. Germany even managed to restore foreign trade, despite the international bankersâ(TM) denial of foreign credit to Germany, and despite the global boycott by Jewish-owned industries. Germany succeeded in this by exchanging equipment and commodities directly with other countries, using a barter system that cut the bankers out of the picture. Germany flourished, since barter eliminates national debt and trade deficits. (Venezuela does the same thing today when it trades oil for commodities, plus medical help, and so on. Hence the bankers are trying to squeeze Venezuela.)

      Germanyâ(TM)s economic freedom was short-lived; but it left several monuments, including the famous Autobahn, the worldâ(TM)s first extensive superhighway. Hjalmar Schacht, a Rothschild agent who was temporarily head of the German central bank, summed it up thus⦠An

    39. Re:Differences between versions by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Wolfenstein 3D maybe but that was never censored down anyway and remains banned to this day.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    40. Re:Differences between versions by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Immediately after the war, Germany was essentially under military occupation by the victorious powers. In effect, most of the normal liberties that the citizens could have hoped to enjoy (not that they actually had enjoyed said liberties since the Nazi rise to power) were suspended. The logic at the time was they did not want the provisional military government(s) undermined by an aggressive push by remnants of the Nazi party. It was the same justification used by the occupying military government in Japan to terminate all religious rituals and notions of divinity that the Emperor had enjoyed.

      In short, for better or for worse (and I think history indicates that in both Germany and Japan, for the better), these were moves to disestablish the regimes in question, not only to remove them (or at least in the case of Japan to castrate) but to discredit them.

      You won't find a bigger proponent of free speech than me, but if I was the military governor of, say, the British Sector in 1946, you're damned straight I wouldn't want any Nazis coming out of the woodwork to try to mount some sort of revolution. Six hard and bloody years had been spent toppling these bastards.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    41. Re:Differences between versions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nazi Propaganda had an extremely strong symbolism that knew how to get into people's minds. As of today people from everywhere in the world are still being intrigued by 70 years old propaganda material. Adolescents in Asia wearing SS-Uniforms when going out; Ultra right winged Americans using some of the symbols in their own agenda;

      Disallowing the use of those Symbols in Germany and Austria is giving the skin heads a harder time gathering people, as they cannot use readilly available material.

      However, the laws in those countries should be brought up to date with 21st Century Media. Why can a computer game not picture those symbols to create a proper atmosphere when films can? I don't recall the courts demanding the makers of Inglorious Basterds editting the swastikas and elements of uniforms out.

      Then again, it appears to be a bad time to discuss the whole matter, as currently in Germany media and politicians are convinced shooter games are the sole reason for the recent school shootings. They even worked on forbidding the Gotcha game.

    42. Re:Differences between versions by Estanislao+Mart�nez · · Score: 2, Funny

      I think you mean that you're being a "Grammar [REDACTED IN GERMANY]"

      Yeah, I know what you mean. Something like a Grammar strict police...

    43. Re:Differences between versions by interploy · · Score: 1

      You'd think they'd make an exception. Hard to consider a game about killing nazis an endorsement for the 3rd reich. Also, if it's a matter of a few textures, couldn't they have just released a patch?

    44. Re:Differences between versions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't there something facist about censoring facism?

    45. Re:Differences between versions by oldspewey · · Score: 1

      I wonder what would happen if you chose to fly the Swastik of ancient buddhist origin on a flag outside your house?

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    46. Re:Differences between versions by notbob · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This censorship in germany of the swastika is beyond retarded.

      Whether you're proud of the Nazi's or not, they happened and were the pride of germany for many many years and did a great deal more to advance this world then any other group in history.

      I personally thank the nazi's for causing the world to change, and see no reason to try to rewrite history by denying the world from seeing the symbols of it.

      Many people feel the nazi's were ignorant for killing that many people, but being ignorant enough to promote censorship is just as bad if not worse.

      I'd rather fight for my life and be free then live easily under restriction and confinement.

    47. Re:Differences between versions by notbob · · Score: 0

      I think it's more insane that you wish to restrain someone from posting a legitimate flag of their country, like it or not it's their right to display it.

      I'd be very proud to have neighbors with the proper balls it takes to display that flag, I would take no offense to my neighbor posting a Canadian flag as I would take no offense to a nazi flag or south african.

      Equality and freedom is universal not pick and choose, you are what you hate when you discriminate even against those that discriminate against others.

    48. Re:Differences between versions by Fael · · Score: 1

      That you are convinced invoking the phrase "bunch of jews" will magically ignite some kind of uniquely Semitic firestorm of controversy, AC, speaks more to your own illogical beliefs and double standards than those of the mainstream. (Only barely worth mentioning, even parenthetically, is your odd notion that "bunch of muslims" is somehow 'going further' [on what intangible axis of delusion?] than "bunch of christians".)

    49. Re:Differences between versions by tool462 · · Score: 1

      A Hitler-style mustache has also been ruined forever, as has the name Adolph.

    50. Re:Differences between versions by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Informative

      My argument is simpler:

      If my neighbors' decision to join the Nazi Party, or smoke weed, or have sex with 20 men, does not physically harm me than I don't really care what they do. I think you're weird but if that's how you enjoy spending your life, then go to it. That's what liberty means.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    51. Re:Differences between versions by Fred_A · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Obviously, someone shouldn't be allowed to fly the flag of Nazi Germany outside their house,[...]

      Just a precision, The US is the only country I've seen where people display their flag outside their house. Elsewhere it's at most sometimes done during the national day.

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    52. Re:Differences between versions by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      So if the EU passes a Free Speech law, Germany's decades-long censorship of "Nazi" and swastikas will be overturned by the central government? Hmmm. No wonder the EU Constitution got voted down.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    53. Re:Differences between versions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1 Insightful. Rather than bring German children up in a vacuum, let them know truth, the point out the nastiness to them and let them form their own opinion. They will respect you for it, rather than fear their past irrationally. Probably the neo-Nazis in Germany are a product of this vacuum anyway - they are almost being told by their own parents and teachers that their nation (and, by extension, themselves) is somehow intrinsically cruel, and that they need to be scared and embarrassed about it every waking hour. No wonder some of them choose to rebel against this treatment. All that being said, I have deep respect for the way Germany have fully admitted its guilt and distanced itself so strongly from its past. But there comes a time when it's time for the world to forgive and for them to move on....

    54. Re:Differences between versions by smithmc · · Score: 1

      So if the EU passes a Free Speech law, Germany's decades-long censorship of "Nazi" and swastikas will be overturned by the central government? Hmmm. No wonder the EU Constitution got voted down.

      I don't know how it works in the EU; California, in case you hadn't heard, is in the United States, not Europe. But if you ask me, yes, that's how it should work; otherwise, what the hell good is the EU?

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
    55. Re:Differences between versions by kLaNk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Obviously, someone shouldn't be allowed to fly the flag of Nazi Germany outside their house

      When you start that sentence out with "obviously" I fear you've already missed the mark.

      In the US south confederate flags are flown often. In other parts of the world swastikas are common decoration, even decorating holy temples.

      Taking a stance like yours only empowers those icons and enables them to continue to be a hot topic decades later. If, after the civil war, nigger had been legally banned and the government moved to great lengths to eradicate its usage, I'd argue that it would hold *significantly* more power than it does today.

    56. Re:Differences between versions by Synn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Obviously, someone shouldn't be allowed to fly the flag of Nazi Germany outside their house

      Why is this obvious? People fly the confederate flag all the time. Yeah, I'm sure it's offensive to many groups, but that's the problem with free speech, it's often offensive.

    57. Re:Differences between versions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that was a local school district, not the state of california

    58. Re:Differences between versions by GargamelSpaceman · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Yes, but now some politician has to be publically *for* removing the laws which means this issue has to be more important to them than about a million of other issues which really are important unlike whether or not schwa stickers are allowed.. So... This poitician with questionable priorties may also have questionable ideologies ( since this minor thing was so important to them ) which means they likely wouldn't get elected in the first place.

      I mean unless you were a nazi why risk something that matters over advocating repealing anti-nazi laws? A non-nazi who wanted the anti-nazi laws repealed might mention that restricting free speech is a bad idea, but free speech minus schwa stickers is free speech still. Hardly anyone misses the schwa sticker, and of those that do miss it the vast majority hardly ever miss it. There happens to be no compelling need for the schwa sticker itself. Of course it's absence probably makes it more conspicuous.

      --
      ...
    59. Re:Differences between versions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Two words for you, my man:

      Sunset provision.

      I have no problem with justified, situational revoking of limited subsets of liberty, provided it expires. For instance, I had no problem with the original USA PATRIOT act, solely because it would expire after a year, and hey, people were scared and needed a bit of security theater. Then, they went ahead and renewed it, and made it permanent... THAT was a stupid move.

    60. Re:Differences between versions by bcmm · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Displaying the confederate flag doesn't generally imply a threat of violence. Displaying a Nazi flag (I say this to intentional not include other uses of the swastika) in seriousness does.

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    61. Re:Differences between versions by GargamelSpaceman · · Score: 1
      Vexillogically, what do you think a good 'bad guys' flags would be?

      And the Jolly Roger and variants won't work. Pirates feel too cute nowadays. I want a great flag for absolute evil. The Nazi flag IMHO was a great flag, red ( blood ), black and white for contrast, It made a great bad guys flag, but there was nothing overtly evil about it, it just feels 'bad-guy-ish'

      Time to think of a new bad guys flag for the next evil empire.

      --
      ...
    62. Re:Differences between versions by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      A difference in perceptions.
      "Obviously, someone shouldn't be allowed to fly the flag of Nazi Germany outside their house"
      No that is perfectly legal in the US. We call it free speech.
      The US believes that all political speech should be protected even if it is nasty and ugly. The idea is that it is better for everybody to be free to make political statements and let the people decide.
      Of course we didn't have Hitler so I can see why they Germany feels different. We are not the same nation so what works for the US may not work for Germany. As long as the people have the right to change that law then it is okay.
      But you statment show a huge disconnect between what the US thinks of free speech and many other nations.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    63. Re:Differences between versions by oldspewey · · Score: 1

      Displaying the confederate flag doesn't generally imply a threat of violence.

      cue banjo music

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    64. Re:Differences between versions by tezbobobo · · Score: 1

      I don't think it was ever about the Nazi's rising from the ashes. Besides which that would be patently impossible. Sometimes govts make laws which display a message or meaning to the populace. In how many countries are prostitution/abortion/euthenasia illegal, though overlooked. The laws indicate the values of the national character.

    65. Re:Differences between versions by Golddess · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Displaying the confederate flag doesn't generally imply a threat of violence.

      Maybe not to you...

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    66. Re:Differences between versions by superdana · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The original (pre-Nazi) swastika is still used in Japan too. It's all over the maps there--it marks the location of temples.

      Also, those of you who have character palettes on your computers, look up Unicode code points 534D and 5350. I wonder if those are blank on German computers.

    67. Re:Differences between versions by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I don't know how many gamers are in Germany

      I know that when I ran the Springfield Fragfest (a Quake site) ten years ago, I got a hell of a lot of hits from Germany, and a lot of links from German sites. I'd say half of my traffic, especially in December when I ran the Quake Christmas page, was from there. And I don't even speak German, it was an English language site.

    68. Re:Differences between versions by sorak · · Score: 1

      I know you're talking more about censorship than anything, but doesn't it also matter that the people with swastikas are portrayed as villains? If you want a controversy, try replacing all the swastikas with Stars of David, or crosses...Then, we would have a reason to complain.

      To beat the dead horse further, does Doom encourage us to empathize with demons?

    69. Re:Differences between versions by bottlerocket · · Score: 1

      The link you provided seems to be down. Fortunately, Google seems to have cached everything.

      --
      where the comment ends and sig begins
    70. Re:Differences between versions by Moryath · · Score: 1

      The US believes that all political speech should be protected even if it is nasty and ugly.

      We do?

      Somebody needs to tell that to all those who keep screeching about taking various people off the air, or about all the things you "shouldn't be allowed to say" in America...

    71. Re:Differences between versions by Tiger4 · · Score: 1

      Beyond the obvious problems with censorship in general, this kind of "censorship" where superficial elements are removed while keeping the overall spirit and subject matter of the game (come on, who wouldn't figure out looking at those obfuscated Nazi banners what the REAL symbol is supposed to mean) ...

      You could just as easily say the sanitized version should be sold everywhere. Everyone would still know you were referring to the old Nazis, but you would not be propagating the symbols of the old regime, and it would be easier (and thus cheaper) to manufacture. It isn't like historical accuracy is at risk here. Not even the most virulent anti-Nazis truly believes they were *actually* demons from Hell.

      --
      Behold, this dreamer cometh. Come now, and let us slay him... and we shall see what will become of his dreams.
    72. Re:Differences between versions by scorp1us · · Score: 1

      It was ruined long before that, my friend.

      --
      Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
    73. Re:Differences between versions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If that would be the case, many other symbols such as hammer-and-sickle, red star, david's star and so on would be forbidden too. This is however clearly not the case in Germany.

    74. Re:Differences between versions by toadlife · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Opinions should be allowed. Lies stated as if they were facts to back up those opinions, and hate speech should not be. In many countries more civilized that the United States, many of the people that we have on the air would not be allowed on the airwaves.

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
    75. Re:Differences between versions by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The fact that a bolt of lightning hasn't come down from the heavens and fried guys like you where you sit is one of the top reasons I'm an atheist.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    76. Re:Differences between versions by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 1

      The problem is that banning swastikas is just the wrong way around. People only supported the Nazis because of a disastrous economy and a sense that Germany had been badly treated after WW1.

      The most important way of keeping the nazis (or someone like them) from rising again is to keep the economy working well.

      As for neo-nazis, they're mostly just loonies. They're as useless as UFO fanatics or 9/11 conspiracy guys. They'll never be savvy enough to gain power anywhere.

      The next fascists won't use Nazi symbolism, they'll do something completely different.

    77. Re:Differences between versions by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How does censoring hate speech stop hate? It hasn't done so in Austria and Germany. You don't extinguish evil ideas by banning them, you extinguish them with counter-argument and facts. Only a fool believes that censorship leads to freedom.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    78. Re:Differences between versions by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 1

      Well in truth they would have to succeed at seceding, a feat that would not happen very easily.

    79. Re:Differences between versions by V!NCENT · · Score: 1

      Don't worry my Germans naughbours; it's just a reskinned (and I don't mean reskinned as in the Germen market version) sequal of RTCW and they even managed to make it suck like hell. Your money is better spend elsewhere...

      --
      Here be signatures
    80. Re:Differences between versions by Aqualung812 · · Score: 1

      Somebody needs to tell that to all those who keep screeching about taking various people off the air

      No, they're allowed their stupid opinion too. It is when they try to pass laws that I'll show them the constitution.

      --
      Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
    81. Re:Differences between versions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What politician wants to stand up and denounce such a law, at the risk of looking like a Nazi sympathiser?

      Well, since the party is no more, no politician can be a sympathiser of the national socialist party. Since the censorship of art is something very much like the nazi party did, the brave politician could argue for the lifting of the censorship as an act against the ideology of the nazi party, in fact.

    82. Re:Differences between versions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe he's just making God laugh too hard to zap him.

    83. Re:Differences between versions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jean Plantureux, the political cartoonist from France's Le Monde newspaper, came to talk to my college a few years back and explained that due to anti-Nazi laws they couldn't draw any swastikas on anyone. So what they do if they want to say somebody's a Nazi is they draw them with an armband with a white circle on it. Everyone knows exactly what the white circle means.

      Strang, that means that the French are even more strict than the Germans. In Germany, it is perfectly OK to use the swastika for example in satirical context (among other things), see eg
      http://preview.tinyurl.com/mzryvx (a cartoon from a German satirical magazine)

    84. Re:Differences between versions by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

      But there comes a time when it's time for the world to forgive and for them to move on....

      Exactly, I think you can take any 20 something or teenager and say something about Germany and the first thing that comes to mind isn't the Berlin Wall, World War II or anything historical, but rather German culture, German Beer or perhaps German Music.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    85. Re:Differences between versions by ZorinLynx · · Score: 1

      When I was in Canada I saw Canadian flags flying outside many residences.

      The US isn't the only country in the world with national pride; TRUST me.

      National pride is perfectly okay; it is good to love your country. It's also possible to take it too far, though, like anything else in life. :)

    86. Re:Differences between versions by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1


      It's also interesting that the game is 18+ and germans are still not allowed to see any blood.

      How do you come to that idea?

      Your idea is not correct.

      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    87. Re:Differences between versions by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      I have the impression that you don't kwo what "censorship" is or means.

      And no, I don't educate you about it, go and read wikipedia.

      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    88. Re:Differences between versions by Dogtanian · · Score: 4, Funny

      That way the neighbors can remind them what happens to nazis in the end.

      You mean by giving them a free trip to South America?

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    89. Re:Differences between versions by julesh · · Score: 1

      Note: I do not agree with the German governments staunch policy against symbols but they're free to govern as they see fit (pending the EU's approval).

      Actually, they're signatories to the ECHR, so theoretically they have guaranteed freedom of expression in a way that trumps their own government of it. This law is quite clearly a violation of free expression, and is therefore probably unconstituational.

      Also: here's a question... do german history books not have pictures of swastikas in them? Does this law not also make any such book illegal? It's interesting to note that the German wikipedia is clearly not following any such proscription.

    90. Re:Differences between versions by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      No law requires taking people off the air due to what they say. That is done voluntarily by the broadcaster in question, because they don't want to lose their listeners or watchers.

    91. Re:Differences between versions by toadlife · · Score: 1

      How does censoring hate speech stop hate??

      I don't recall claiming that it does. Care to point out which passage of mine that you think makes that claim?

      The SCOTUS has already ruled that speech meant to incite civil unrest is not protected under the first amendment. Given that, and the fact that the first amendment was specifically aimed at the press, I don't see the limiting speech on the airwaves that is intended to incite hatred or violence goes againsts our laws.

      Only a fool believes that censorship leads to freedom.

      Again, you make a statement addressing something which I did not say.

      Every law in existence is in effect, censorship. Only a fool believes that all censorship is harmful to society.

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
    92. Re:Differences between versions by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      The confederation did neither murder 7 to 10 million people in KZ's, nor was it an fascist ideology nor did it cause a war that caused 50 to 60 million deathes world wide.

      The confederation only was a group of states that wanted to separate from the USA. If the old USA had granted (or at least honoured) them the same rights they took themselves when they separated from the UK, there would not have been a war at all.

      But allas ... there was to much to lose for the northern states when the south successfully had separated from them ... but I assume that is not tought in your history classes ^^

      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    93. Re:Differences between versions by pluther · · Score: 1

      Somebody does tell that to those people.

      All the time.

      That's why they never get any widespread support when they try to pass laws limiting what these people can say.

      Because most (not all, obviously. In political discourse you're never ever going to get to "all") people, while annoyed at the likes of Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Savage, etc., recognize their right to spew their lies and hatred to their idiot followers all they want.

      --
      If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
    94. Re:Differences between versions by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      No, by making them rebuy all their tools, allowing them to become an economic superpower within ten years.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    95. Re:Differences between versions by toadlife · · Score: 1

      You don't extinguish evil ideas by banning them, you extinguish them with counter-argument and facts.

      Let me be clear that I'm specifically talking about limiting the speech of those who have control over mass media communication channels. I agree that counter argument and facts are the best way to fight bad ideas, but counter arguments and facts are useless when one party has no effective method of rebutting the arguments.

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
    96. Re:Differences between versions by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      SCOTUS's application is far more restrictive than you let on. As I understand it, the restriction applies to that which could lead to immediate consequences (the shouting "fire" in the theater example). It certainly doesn't apply to some skinhead's racist rants, unless those rants were to insight a mob to injure people (again, an example of shouting "fire" in a theater).

      Banning hate speech because of some more distant, less tangible potential at some future time for some sort of violence is not a reasonable extension of that principle.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    97. Re:Differences between versions by tweek · · Score: 1

      Hate speech is still speech and should still be protected. The first amendment doesn't exist to protect popular speech but unpopular speech.

      Hate crimes/hate speech are stupid concepts anyway. It's basically the modern equivalent of thoughtcrime.

      --
      "Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
    98. Re:Differences between versions by bcmm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If someone were to fly as confederate flag as in implicit threat to murder his black neighbours, then I think he should be made to take it down. I'm not from the US, but I get the impression that it's more often used as a symbol of disliking the federal government. I don't see that (seriously) showing a Nazi flag could ever not be taken as a threat against the Jewish/Roma/whatever population of a city.

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    99. Re:Differences between versions by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      "The confederation only was a group of states that wanted to separate from the USA [because the North finally found some morals and objected to keeping other humans as slaves in a country of supposedly Free Men]."

      But allas ... there was to much to lose for the northern states when the south successfully had separated from them

      Please enlighten us then.

    100. Re:Differences between versions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      For example, you can burn a swastika flag without trouble, or you can wear an anti-nazi shirt with a red bar across the swastika.

      Actually, you can get in trouble for that, too. The ban on the display of nazi or counter-constitutional symbols does not make an explicit exception for showing the symbols in a non-educational but anti-nazi context. Therefore, it depends on the interpretation of the public prosecutor and the judge.

      The Bundesgerichtshof (supreme civil and penal court) even held that using a swastika to mark a high-rank politician violates the law, the given reason being this: If someone claims that he is a nazi, some people abroad might think that nazi ideas are still accepted in Germany. That must not be allowed, even if it might be true. (Well, you can say or write that someone is a nazi but expressing the same idea in a picture is verboten.)

      Only showing the swastika in a clearly anti-nazi content is allowed. This includes a stricken swastika or throwing it into a trash bin. However, this just means that you have a good chance of eventually being acquitted but it does not protect you from a search of your home and other investigative measures if the public prosecutor does not like you. It does not help if you're leftish or bordering on left-wing extremism.

      Yes, many anti-fascists have actually been prosecuted and convicted for using nazi symbols!

      However, if you're a multi-million American movie studio, you can usually get away with showing it in an artistic context and in films like the Indy series or Inglourious Basterds. No prosecutor would dare seizing your film.

      It's a bit different if you're making a video game, especially one of the so-called "killerspiele" (killing games) such as Far Cry, Counterstrike, World of Warcraft or the Sims (all of these have been mentioned by politicians). Then you're not an artist but one of the bastards responsible for school shootings.

    101. Re:Differences between versions by 3247 · · Score: 1

      The nazi era has been part of the curriculum for quite a long time in Germany.

      Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, there's even stuff following it (the post-war era), so it's not even left out because teachers run out of time. Furthermore, the nazi teachers that did not want to talk about it have retired or died out, too.

      --
      Claus
    102. Re:Differences between versions by lgw · · Score: 1

      The Confederacy caused a war that killed as many Americans as all other wars combined. Flying the confederate flag causes instant controversy, but is still legal - a great many Americans still really believe in freedom. Also, your arrogance is as unwarrented as it is offensive.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    103. Re:Differences between versions by bcmm · · Score: 1

      No that is perfectly legal in the US. We call it free speech.

      And I call it shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre. Death-threats usually aren't legal.

      I'm not a lawyer or an American (and didn't actually mention the US), but I would hope that putting up a sign saying that you're going to kill your Jewish neighbour would be very illegal over there. Nazi symbols, if used to actually show support for Nazi ideology, are essentially a shorthand for such a statement.

      Someone expressing support for Nazism simply isn't just "nasty and ugly political speech", it's also usually a statement that, with or without a government that supports them, they'd encourage and possibly participate in terrorist attacks on ethnic minorities.

      For the record, I don't think I'm in favour of the now slightly silly absolute ban on swastikas in Germany (nutters collecting Nazi memorabilia are creepy, but aren't going to be made any more dangerous by letting them have the stuff, and most certainly enough time has gone by for films to be made about the war), but I do think that very obvious shows of support for Nazism should be illegal (not just in Germany), simply because they cause people to fear for their lives.

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    104. Re:Differences between versions by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

      The expression "$WHATEVER Nazi" is in fact used here (Austria) and I have heard it often enough from Germans as well.

      The difference is that you have to be *really* pedantic to earn the title...

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    105. Re:Differences between versions by toadlife · · Score: 1

      It certainly doesn't apply to some skinhead's racist rants, unless those rants were to insight a mob to injure people

      See my post below about mass media. I was never talking about individuals on the street or even on the internet.

      And for the record I think Germany's banning of Nazi imagery has long outlived it's usefulness.

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
    106. Re:Differences between versions by bcmm · · Score: 1

      The US is the only country I've seen where people display their flag outside their house.

      I live in the UK, and I have indeed never seen a house with a flagpole. However, the more rabid sports fans and the occasional BNP nutjob will hang the English flag (never the Union Flag) in our out of the window of their house or van (such people seem not to drive normal cars).

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    107. Re:Differences between versions by nametaken · · Score: 1

      Are they? Seems that especially in place like California someone would call it hate speech.

    108. Re:Differences between versions by bcmm · · Score: 1

      "in or out", as in either inside, covering the window, or outside, hanging from it.

      /me should sleep instead of making typos on Slashdot.

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    109. Re:Differences between versions by toadlife · · Score: 1

      As I posted above, I'm not talking about bums on the street. I'm talking about bums with 50+ million captive audiences.

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
    110. Re:Differences between versions by lgw · · Score: 1

      If the government determines wha "ahet speech" is and what "lies" arem then the government in practice controls all speech. Governemnts that declare all speech critical of the government to be either "lies" or "hate speech" aren't theoretical!

      There is no freedom of expression without freedom of offensive expression. Really.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    111. Re:Differences between versions by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1


      So if the EU passes a Free Speech law,

      All EU states - including germany - have a constitutional right for free speech just like any other western nation. In other words there is no "law" needed.

      You have a misconception how the EU law system works. EU laws are made by the EU parliament. National laws are made by the national parliaments.
      EU laws don't supersede national laws (at least not in general). EU member states are "forced" by EU "treaty" to install "copies" of the EU laws as national laws.

      For that a member state has an certain amount of time (e.g. 5 years).

      Germany's decades-long censorship of "Nazi" and swastikas
      First: in germany we have no censorship. Probably you don't know what censorship is. I think this repeated slashdot urban legend that restrictions of free speech are the same as censorship are a big insult to every person that indeed suffers under censorship. Just because I may not public wear SS runes or swastikas symbols without fearing law enforcements does in no way imply we had censorship here.

      Second: Nazi Organizations are considered unconstitutional ... our constitution basically states: everything that tries to uninstall the constitution is considered treason. Organizations that try to do this are not allowed to show their symbols or to do their propaganda in public.
      Third: there is always in all countries a question in law, 'which good do you value higher?'. Is it "free speech" or is it "dignity of human beings"? Is it the right to vote or is it the right to wear firearms ... is it the right to have slaves or is it the right to be free ... or what ever. In germany we consider the dignity of the jewish families who lost members in german KZs of higher value than the right of some neo nazis to express their "lets go and kill all jews" mentality. So we have laws to protect the former and not the later. While the US has laws to protect the later and not the former. Which law is valued higher is completely arbitrary!!

      will be overturned by the central government?
      As I tried to point out, no there is no automatic overruling ...

      Hmmm. No wonder the EU Constitution got voted down.

      The point here - I assume - is: no one really knows what is in the constitution ;D as it is not widely published or explained in the news. So people are expected to inform their selves about it. But: while the german constitution is like 40 pages (or less, did not read it since ages) the proposed EU constitution is about 200 pages.

      The worst thing about the constitution is: in germany the EU constitution was "accepted" by the government. Not by the parliament and certainly not by the people. In other words if that was unclear, the way how germany was involved regarding the installation of the EU constitution was in no way democratic, no people where involve, no parliament was. So most germans are really glad that other EU countries rejected it (because by this it is completely rejected).

      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    112. Re:Differences between versions by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Then you'd better amend the Constitution, because so far as i can tell, as bad as it is, there's nothing illegal about Fox News spreading B.S. It's wrong, it's immoral, but if you want free speech, you have to put up with bad speech, no matter where it comes from.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    113. Re:Differences between versions by toadlife · · Score: 1

      So you think there should be no limits on speech, regardless of the possible repercussions of that speech? Do you disagree with the "fire in a crowded theater" opinion by the SCOTUS?

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
    114. Re:Differences between versions by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      If some neo-Nazi says "The Jews are responsible for all the wars, sugar tits!" in a room full of like-minded individuals then, whatever else he may be, he's within his rights, as guaranteed by the First Amendment. If he says "The Jews are responsible for all the wars, sugar tits, so let's go beat some up!", then he is likely crossed the line.

      SCOTUS has long interpreted the First Amendment very liberally, which means that just because some racist slob posts racists things on his racist web site, or a pack of KKKers or skinheads write pamphlets extolling the virtues of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, or heck if even Fox News makes slanted anti-Latino/anti-Mexican rhetoric under the guise of journalism, that is protected speech. If you cannot draw a very clear and direct line between what someone says and an immediate threat against some member or some group within society, then there's nothing the government can or should do about it.

      That's the problem I have with hate speech. It's an attempt to paint a whole lot of speech with a very broad brush, and really is censorship.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    115. Re:Differences between versions by buchner.johannes · · Score: 1

      Yes, there are some neo-Brown Shirt skin heads out there, and all the anti-Nazi symbolism laws in Germany and Austria haven't seemed to put much of a dent in them. Short of shooting anyone who looks remotely like a Hitler lover, I think the time has come and gone when the laws could be justified.

      I disagree. Austria, unlike Germany, has the Verbotsgesetz, which is a restriction to freedom of speech: It aims to "suppress any potential revival of Nazism [and] denying or grossly minimizing the Holocaust or other Nazi war crimes".
      Neo-Nazis meetings and demonstrations are a much much larger problem in Germany than in Austria, as people glorifying Hitler can not be prosecuted. I would say that these laws are contemporary.

      I know that the vast majority in the US advocates complete freedom of speech (which the US does not have either). They have the scheme of a "market of ideas" were the truth is supposed to finally succeed. However, you have to realize that this scheme is not what other cultures seem appropriate. I am not talking about the state only allowing opinions it does not like (censorship). I am talking about opinions full of hate that are the pre-stage to racist, sexist or religious violence.

      Most countries, as does the US, have some limitations of freedom of speech. Libel, for example.
      Some countries, like Austria and Germany, take the stand that it is acceptable to also cut a piece of the freedom of speech for hatred speakers, sedition and Nazi glorification.
      Please accept this opinion (given the history of the nations), although it is not your own.
      States suppressing the press or the opposition are a different chapter in freedom of speech.

      PS: The Verbotsgesetz is a constitutional law in Austria. The state was founded with it, and it is not a law you can simple remove by a simple majority. The European Court of Human Rights has always rejected law suits against the Verbotsgesetz, because the human rights and freedom may not be abused by enemies of free and democratic order (see here for pro and cons).
      This is a controversial topic, and I'd like to repeat my current signature: This might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.

      --
      NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
    116. Re:Differences between versions by toadlife · · Score: 1

      Given that several rulings since Schenck vs United States have changed the interpretation of the first amendment, rather than amending our constitution, there is also the possibility of amending our interpretation of the constitution.

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
    117. Re:Differences between versions by node+3 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I don't see that (seriously) showing a Nazi flag could ever not be taken as a threat against the Jewish/Roma/whatever population of a city.

      That's absurd. It's just a flag. If someone puts up a flag and they are a person who will engage in violence against some other group of people, how is them not being able to put up the flag going to change anything?

      People are too goddamned cowardly these days.

    118. Re:Differences between versions by leromarinvit · · Score: 1

      Actually, it wouldn't be intimidating. If you tried this (and it was legal), I can guarantee that the flag, the flagpole, the garden fence, your windows and many other things would be gone very soon.

      Actually, if it were legal to hang a Nazi flag out of your window, it would for the same reason be illegal for someone else to take it down just because he doesn't like it. Just like homophobes can't just remove the local gay club's LGBT flag.

      As long as it's illegal, you can at least call the police to have it removed, or you could probably even remove it yourself (although I would suggest not trying that if the owners are nearby, since neo-nazis tend to not only be assholes, but also very violent assholes).

      --
      Proud member of the Ferengi Socialist Party.
    119. Re:Differences between versions by amilo100 · · Score: 1

      And the Yankee flag... How many wars have you started?


      Probably the most offensive flag in existence is the Union Jack. It represents quite a few years of oppression (the Nazi flag just 4 years).

    120. Re:Differences between versions by leromarinvit · · Score: 1

      Actually, there have been some politicians who have called for these laws to be repealed. The trouble is, these politicians have all been very much of the far-right sort.

      Just goes to show that apparently some people aren't yet ready for the laws to go away.

      --
      Proud member of the Ferengi Socialist Party.
    121. Re:Differences between versions by lgw · · Score: 1

      Only speech that is directly and immediately inciting violence should be eligible for government censorship. There's a world of difference between "you should kill the Jew standing next to you right now - there he is - get him!" and "I favor a government policy of killing Jews". The latter is and should protected political speech. For damn sure, if a political candidate believes the latter I want him to say so, and keep saying so until every voter knows that's his belief.

      Similarly, if lies are not libel or slander, they are and should be protected speech. Sure, that means people are free to say "the holocaust never happened", but that's the only way we can have an actual discussion/argument about whether a given health care plan includes "death panels". If the governement can jail you for pointing out what you see as the natural consequence of a proposed law, because the party in power doesn't see the same thing, then there's no real ability to discuss laws in public. Arguably, Britain (can't rememebr whether this was England or Scotland) has already reached this state, with a legistlator being jailed for "hate speech" statements made in parliament about a proposed law.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    122. Re:Differences between versions by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Libel laws are a civil matter. I cannot be criminally prosecuted for saying "Mel Gibson enjoys fucking goats, and can be found every Thursday at the San Diego zoo doing unspeakable things to them." I can certainly be sued for saying, but that isn't the business of the criminal courts.

      On purely philosophical grounds save for very limited kinds of speech (ie. crying "fire" in a crowded movie theater), where a very immediate danger can be attributed to speech, I'm against any form of censorship. I do not think ideas can be destroyed by banning them, indeed it can strengthen them. The Weimar Republic certainly tried it, jailing guys like Hitler, but they failed, because sometimes attempting to stifle an idea, no matter how nasty or wicked, can give it power. There's already far too much of a mystique to Nazism in some circles, and I think banning it only adds to that, giving it a power far beyond what it would otherwise have.

      But I'm not an Austrian or a German, and it's up to those people to decide what is and what isn't to be banned.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    123. Re:Differences between versions by toadlife · · Score: 1

      I understand your point of view. I'm just saddened by the ignorance of our populace some times. I live in an extremely conservative area of the country, and the hate I see directed towards various out groups is disheartening.

      I would love to read about the legislator who was jailed. I searched and found a few articles about various people jailed for hate speech in Europe, but nothing specifically from Britain.

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
    124. Re:Differences between versions by zuperduperman · · Score: 1

      > Obviously, someone shouldn't be allowed to fly the flag of Nazi Germany outside their house

      Symbols are a tricky issue, as they mean different things to different people. The swastika is a positive symbol in many parts of the world. You can walk the streets in parts of India and see people who have decorated their houses with it. Flags - one of my enduring memories of living in a southern US state was the prevalence of Confederate flags mounted on flag poles in people's yards. Obviously to these folks it is a symbol of pride and yet to many it symbolises slavery. I certainly found it very intimidating.

      Who is to decide when people disagree about what a symbol means?

    125. Re:Differences between versions by lgw · · Score: 1

      I can't seem to find a link. The guy wasn't convicted or even formally accused, just held in jail for some time (unlike the French and Dutch MPs that Goggle finds for me). If you can't say "X is wrong" in a political debate, you don't have democracy, you have rule by whoever controls the list of what you're not allowed to talk about.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    126. Re:Differences between versions by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      That's why laws should come with expirations. Have all laws "sunset" at a maximum of 20 years, even murder. Then it will be forced into debate to justify it. Unfortunately, I expect the actual operaton would be a vote once overy 20 years for "renew all expiring laws?" "Aye"

    127. Re:Differences between versions by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      But allas ... there was to much to lose for the northern states when the south successfully had separated from them ... but I assume that is not tought in your history classes ^^

      Nope, but probably because it wasn't true. The means of production was in the north. The raw material was in the south. The north would have just bought their materials on the open market. The south would have lost out greatly if the north let them go and ceased trade relations. The only thing they had going for them was cheap labor. The north had better industry and support for that industry. It was about power and arrogance. The north thought they new best and that the south shouldn't be able to do what they want without permission.

    128. Re:Differences between versions by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      "I will kill my neighbor" is illegal. "I wish all jews were dead" is not illegal. A flag could hardly be taken as a specific act against someone.

      it's also usually a statement that, with or without a government that supports them, they'd encourage and possibly participate in terrorist attacks on ethnic minorities.

      So? Should we throw Sarah McLachlan in jail because she does commercials on preventing cruelty to animals, and those people often join PETA and attack research facilities? A flag is an association, not a statement of actions. As such, it can't ever be taken as a specific threat.

      I do think that very obvious shows of support for Nazism should be illegal (not just in Germany), simply because they cause people to fear for their lives.

      And Christians bomb clinics, so I want Christianity outlawed. Muslims blow up planes. Jews shoot Muslims. Chinese shoot Tibetans. Ban them all because someone somewhere may think that the flag/cross represents hatred and violence. The choice is that or nothing. And I choose nothing. Of course, you could take the current situation where some things are banned and others not with no regard to actual effect in today's world. But that arbitrary and capricious scheme is abhorrent.

    129. Re:Differences between versions by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      Is there anybody out there who seriously still has a Thatcheristic fear that they'll be burning the Reichstag again?

      IMHO the main effect of the ongoing censorship is to keep the new generations ignorant of the way the NAZIs actually operated. It will be much more difficult for them to recognize it if it raises its smooth head again, draped in a new set of symbols but sending the same old message. So the net result is an INcrease of the risk of a repeat, rather than a DEcrease.

      The wartime anti-NAZI propaganda paints a distorted picture of what it was like. Part of the horror was how ATTRACTIVE and SWEET and "TOUGH LOVE" it all was to those who experienced it directly (and weren't part of the out-groups in the later stages). Another part was how it all followed in easy steps from the Weimar Republic's age of enlightenment and precursor cluster of ideologies (consensus decision-making, health food/vegetarianism, new-age occultism, animal rights, wealth redistribution, government control of "corporate greed" for the public good, ...) that we'd recognize under another name today.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    130. Re:Differences between versions by pete-classic · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Uh, yeah. I corrected myself five minutes before you did.

      -Peter

    131. Re:Differences between versions by mjwx · · Score: 1

      I think the anti-Nazi laws made sense in the first decade or two after the end of WWII, and maybe an argument can be made right through the Cold War, but come on. Is there anybody out there who seriously still has a Thatcheristic fear that they'll be burning the Reichstag again?

      Yes, there are some neo-Brown Shirt skin heads out there, and all the anti-Nazi symbolism laws in Germany and Austria haven't seemed to put much of a dent in them. Short of shooting anyone who looks remotely like a Hitler lover, I think the time has come and gone when the laws could be justified.

      The problem with the Anti-Nazi laws is that they don't take into account historical context. Wolfenstein does not remove the Nazi symbolism from it's correct historical context. It's like banning a documentary for showing actual footage of a Swastika on television. I highly doubt Wolfenstein can be said to be glorifying Nazi's or Fascism in any way.

      But this isn't about Nazi's. Germany's politicians have started a crusade against video games, of course all of this is in the name of die kinder and this is the latest example dragged up by their politicians to point at and say games are bad. So this is less about a bad law and more about bad politicians.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    132. Re:Differences between versions by Philip_the_physicist · · Score: 1

      Yes, I know I'm feeding the troll, but WTF.

      Tell us - why didn't the Germans just SHOOT all the Jews, instead of going to the ludicrous lengths of building elaborate 'gas chambers', which would mean that German soldiers would have to pick up dead bodies which were contamined with Zyklon B... then get them to the 'crematoria' somehow, etc.etc. Why didn't the Germans just frogmarch the Jews to the side of pits, shoot them in the head, and let them all fall in?

      Because it was too slow, too hard on the soldiers, and because they had a large number of slaves to dig the graves and move the bodies.

    133. Re:Differences between versions by Enter+the+Shoggoth · · Score: 1

      Obviously, someone shouldn't be allowed to fly the flag of Nazi Germany outside their house,[...]

      Just a precision, The US is the only country I've seen where people display their flag outside their house. Elsewhere it's at most sometimes done during the national day.

      It's also common here in Australia, mostly it's first generation immigrants however there's a good sprinkling of rednecks who fly the flag as well although with the latter there is also a similar phenomenon to those in the southern states that fly the confederate flag many of them will fly the Eureka Flag.

      --
      Andy Warhol got it right / Everybody gets the limelight
      Andy Warhol got it wrong / Fifteen minutes is too long.
    134. Re:Differences between versions by jackbird · · Score: 1

      It's an ancient Buddhist symbol representing the wheel of Dharma. The Nazis messed up and got it backwards, which is entirely fitting...

    135. Re:Differences between versions by flewp · · Score: 1

      One of my teachers proposed an interesting theory, something I hadn't really thought of much till now. Now, he was actually relaying what he had come across as sort of a "what if" scenario as an alternative to war, and I was also absent from school for the first half of our Civil War studies with a bout of mono. Furthermore, this was 16-17 years ago when I was in 5th grade, so I may be a bit fuzzy on it as well.

      He suggested that had the North not gone to war with the CSA, they would have still initiated a blockade of the South. The North would have then "offered" to buy the CSA's goods at drastically reduced prices, as they would not have the ability to sell to anyone else. We already saw how one of the contributing factors to the South losing was that they simply couldn't sell enough of their goods such as cotton, while Europe was in need of grain supplies from the North. I believe that even when Britain was in need of cotton, they simply looked to either Egypt or maybe it was India for their cotton. I also recall reading that the blockade caused prices of cotton and other goods to skyrocket, which made finding other sources an economic necessity in addition to being a political necessity. Other nations were also afraid of defying the blockade, as the USA threatened war with any country who recognized the CSA as an independent country. Anyway, the ultimate goal would have been to basically cause an economic collapse of the South, in an attempt to get them to rejoin the Union.

      Whether or not this is true, or would have been a viable option, I have no idea. I'm fascinated by the Civil War, but most of my study has revolved around battles themselves. I should really look into the greater scheme of things though, for which I ask if you can suggest any recommended reading on the subject matter?

      --
      WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
    136. Re:Differences between versions by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Nope a Nazi flag is in no way illegal in the US. And saying that you are Pro Nazi is not a crime in the US.
      You are totally wrong. I can understand your feelings but where do you draw the line. You and I both don't like Nazis but what about the African American groups that say white people are the devil? Should they be banned?
      Who decides what is too scary?
      As I said the US has a much different history than a lot of nations in the EU. Just as I can understand your feelings you are 100% wrong about the law in the US. Here is an example for you.
      http://www.pbase.com/ronsc/neonazirally
      We don't fear these crack pots because we never let them gain control of our nation.
      If I could tell you that their where no neo nazis in the US I would be a very happy man. But they are and they have the right to free speech just as I do.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    137. Re:Differences between versions by flewp · · Score: 1

      Probably the most offensive flag in existence is the Union Jack. It represents quite a few years of oppression (the Nazi flag just 4 years).

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the Nazi flag have been flown for 12 years, from 1933 to 1945? (Or rather, wouldn't it have been the national flag for those 12 years, though having been around longer, since the inception of the Nazi party?)

      --
      WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
    138. Re:Differences between versions by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      While I do agree with you we in the US have a much different history than Germany or a lot of other nations in the EU. We didn't have Nazis hunting Jews in our streets. We are lucky that our system has worked so well for us. Germany and the nations of the EU are democracies respect that they have the right to vote and pick the laws that work best for them.
      In the last 60 years they have come a long way.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    139. Re:Differences between versions by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Even that is part of free speech. You are even allowed to say that free speech shouldn't be so free. Or call the President a lair.

      The thing is that way to many people don't understand the protections they have under free speech.
      Free Speech doesn't mean you can say anything you want and not have consequences. It means that you will not go to jail for voicing your political opinion.
      If you make a jerk of your self on TV and the viewers don't want to watch you anymore then yes you can loose your job.

      You call your boss names and you can loose your job.
      What you will not do is go to jail but their is no law that can or should protect you from being judged for what you say and do.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    140. Re:Differences between versions by Kam+Solusar · · Score: 1

      Also: here's a question... do german history books not have pictures of swastikas in them? Does this law not also make any such book illegal? It's interesting to note that the German wikipedia is clearly not following any such proscription.

      German law includes exceptions for the use of symbols of banned organizations in education, science, research, news coverage and art (Â86 StGB, (3)). So history books and educational sites like Wikipedia are allowed to use these symbols (as long as they don't use them in totally different contexts). IMHO, the use of swastikas in video games should be allowed, as games are art, just like movies (Indiana Jones, Inglorious Basterds, etc..). But not everything that's allowed by the law is allowed by the BPjM.

      --
      The Angels have the Phone Box
    141. Re:Differences between versions by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I recently moved and threw out a bunch of old books. Some of the more interesting ones were my father's history books. They were written before WWII, before the civil rights movement, and do a much better job of ignoring slavery. The North didn't get into it to protect those oppressed blacks. The North wanted control. The North forced the hand of the South by squeezing.

      Oh, and causing economic collapse of the south wouldn't have worked. They were self sufficient. Anyone that thinks they would have groveled after being insulted like that never met a southerner... They'd have lived out their lives as an underdeveloped country. It'd be much like Cuba and the US.

    142. Re:Differences between versions by flewp · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yeah, the Civil War only became a war to "free the blacks" after support for the war was wavering. Lincoln saw an opportunity to take the "moral high ground" and used it as a way to try and boost support for the war. As you said, the North wanted control, and as the war dragged on, people started questioning whether it was worth it. Lincoln then tried turning it into a war to free the slaves to garner more public support, and to re-purpose the war with a more worthy and lofty cause. While slavery was part of the issue for the start of the war, the South seceded because they wanted more say over the way things were run, which while that included slavery, it wasn't the main or only cause.

      As for the economic collapse theory, like I said, I have no idea if it could have worked. I think you're absolutely correct about them not grovelling and coming back to the union though. I obviously wasn't alive at the time, so I can't say, but it does seem the North underestimated the South's resolve and stubbornness. I think that as you say, they might have lived out a life as an "underdeveloped country" for awhile, but I'd have to imagine that after awhile, they'd rebuild their infrastructure to better support their country.

      --
      WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
    143. Re:Differences between versions by noidentity · · Score: 1

      I couldn't help but laugh when looking at the screenshot comparisons. There are these magnifications of small areas showing the difference, all while one after another involves dismembered bodies and blood everywhere. That's fine, but a little symbol... unacceptable!

    144. Re:Differences between versions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What he was implying is that people would wreck the Nazi flag waver's house whether it was legal or not.

    145. Re:Differences between versions by gullevek · · Score: 1

      You can use the symbol if it is for movies or documentations. Beyond that is strictly forbidden. Doesn't of course stop stupid young people smear it on bus stops, chairs, etc.

      --
      "Freiheit ist immer auch die Freiheit des Andersdenkenden" - Rosa Luxemburg, 1871 - 1919
    146. Re:Differences between versions by dcam · · Score: 1

      Whether you're proud of the Nazi's or not, they happened and were the pride of germany for many many years and did a great deal more to advance this world then any other group in history.

      I hope for your sake that is a typo of some sort.

      --
      meh
    147. Re:Differences between versions by Zoxed · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > Many people feel the nazi's were ignorant for killing that many people, but being ignorant enough to promote censorship is just as bad if not worse.

      Have I understood you correctly: are you saying that banning the Swastika in German is the same as starting WW2 and creating the Holocaust ?

    148. Re:Differences between versions by xtracto · · Score: 1

      Is there anybody out there who seriously still has a Thatcheristic fear that they'll be burning the Reichstag again?

      I am sorry I came late to the discussion, as this is a story which I think I can add some interesting comments (as an expat living in east-Germany).

      There are enough people following the Nazi movement in Germany. Enough to form a party (search for NPD). Worst of all is that, in the last elections (In Sachsen and Sachsen-Anhalt "states") they got from 5% to 9% of votes.

      Regarding the nonsense of banning the images I am not so sure. While I was looking at the images, I found the blood and body parts quite gross (and I like Wolfenstein games).

      In contrast, here in Germany there is no problem on showing a pair of tits on open TV (even before 9pm), they do not "fear" that kids see a pair of breasts, I guess for them, that is normal, while for the USA blood, gore and massacre is normal (or at least, those are the normal values they want to give to their kids).

      I think the time has come and gone when the laws could be justified.

      I partially agree. I know there is *still* a general filling of guilt about the holocaust and Germany's actions during WW2. I do not think it such guilt felt by the younger generations is justified. I have some friends that felt so guilty that the joke of "how do you get 55 jews in a VW beetle?: 2 front, 3 back and 50 in the ashtray" got them really upset... (I know, really bad taste joke).

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    149. Re:Differences between versions by Xest · · Score: 1

      "As for neo-nazis, they're mostly just loonies. They're as useless as UFO fanatics or 9/11 conspiracy guys. They'll never be savvy enough to gain power anywhere."

      I wish that were true. Sadly, by playing the "blame the immigrants" card, they're doing quite well in many places. The BNP whom are holocaust deniers and Nazi sympathisers in the UK got themselves two seats in Europe last European election and have some council seats, including one in London itself.

      It's not just in Britain though, it's the same story in many European nations. Furthermore part the problem is that when you have other nations, such as Iran, with dictators in power which are no less hateful or dangerous than Hitler, and they fund terrorism as they do, and whilst you have groups like Al Qaeda trying to attack more liberal countries, then people in those countries are given reasons to hate those abroad, and hence allow groups like the BNP (i.e. neo-Nazi groups) too play on that anger and fear to recruit.

      I think you misunderestimate the threat of them, and it's that complacency that got Germany to where they were in the 1930s. It's better to accept they're a threat and deal with them than pretend they're not and suffer the consequences as we have before.

    150. Re:Differences between versions by Xest · · Score: 1

      "Of course, these are the same people that think the word playboy means rabbit and have no idea of the brand's link to the porn industry. Gotta love Asian culture."

      It's not just asian culture, they've rebranded Playboy as a fashion brand in the West too. There's something basically messed up about 11 yr old girls running round with Playboy t-shirts on!

    151. Re:Differences between versions by Tom · · Score: 1

      What's done here detracts from immersion while serving absolutely no purpose

      I used to think so. Then I played a couple of WW2 games where they simply replaced the nazi symbols with other, fitting ones. Like the eagly of the german army, etc.

      Know what? Immersion was perfect to me. I don't need nazi symbols anymore than I need the "real" US marines uniform. In games as in all art, it's not about making a perfect real-world copy. "Feel like it" is more important, and often easier to accomplish through straying from perfect copying, than "be like it".

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    152. Re:Differences between versions by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      I think the anti-Nazi laws made sense in the first decade or two after the end of WWII, and maybe an argument can be made right through the Cold War, but come on. Is there anybody out there who seriously still has a Thatcheristic fear that they'll be burning the Reichstag again?

      Who says the point is to start them burning the Reichstag? Maybe the point is simply to learn from their mistakes and be more mature as a country. Personally I think it wouldn't be a bad thing if we discouraged (without censoring) violent games.

    153. Re:Differences between versions by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      OK, so the English provided centuries of oppression, but I don't think it was quite as *intense* as the Nazi's.

    154. Re:Differences between versions by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Flags seem somewhat common in garden colonies here, not so much on buildings.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    155. Re:Differences between versions by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      The Nazi swastika looks different from a Buddhist swastika, especially when it comes with the whole red background and white circle deal.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    156. Re:Differences between versions by mcvos · · Score: 1

      The confederation did neither murder 7 to 10 million people in KZ's, nor was it an fascist ideology nor did it cause a war that caused 50 to 60 million deathes world wide.

      The confederation only was a group of states that wanted to separate from the USA.

      There was also the slavery issue, you know? Enslaving a fellow human being might not be quite as bad as murdering him, but it's still pretty high on the list of despicable things to do.

    157. Re:Differences between versions by skiman1979 · · Score: 1

      You forgot to capitalize "Damen" and "Herren". Yeah I know I'm being nitpicky. ;-)

      I think you mean that you're being a "Grammar [REDACTED IN GERMANY]"

      Your censorship script isn't working. I'm not in Germany and your post is still being censored here.

      --
      Having a smoking section in a public restaurant is like having a peeing section in a public swimming pool.
    158. Re:Differences between versions by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Well let me give you an example of a lie.
      Michel Moore in one of his movies filmed the outside of a factory that produces the Titan III rocket.
      In the movie he claims that it produces weapons of mass destruction just like the ones we invaded Iraq to find.
      The Titan III was never used as a weapon system. It is used to launch satellites. It has been used to launch spy satellites but also communications, and even space probes to Mars and the outer planets.
      The Titan II was uses as a weapon system but was retired back in the 80s and many where then converted to launch satellites.
      What Moore said was a lie. He found a factory that made big rockets and called them weapons of mass destruction. A flat out lie. So should his movies be banned?
      I don't think so.
      Or two NPR stories I heard one day about 17 year old boys being drafted to fight a war in Africa followed by a story about 15 and 16 year old women's rights to abortion.
      If you don't see the bias please read it again.
      Should they be shut down for slanting the news?
      You see that is the problem with censoring political speech. Once you do start letting the goverment decide who is a lieing bum it becomes way too easy to shut down people saying things you don't like to hear.
      I hear slanted new stories from every side so they all tend to equal out in the end.
      Of course the big problem is way to many people in the US and frankly the world in general know that that the opinions that they agree with are facts and the opinions they don't like are lies.
      It is on both the right and the left.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    159. Re:Differences between versions by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>I think this repeated slashdot urban legend that restrictions of free speech are the same as censorship are a big insult to every person that indeed suffers under censorship.

      Imagine that I'm a Hindu from India. I show-up in Germany wearing my traditional garb, which also includes the swastika meaning "well being". I then find myself pulled into a German jail. That's called censorship. It means I'm no longer a freeman, but a slave of the "master" known as the government, which owns my body and controls my mouth.

      I much prefer the U.S. model, where people own themselves, and even death threats are considered a protected right of a liberated, sovereign individual.

      >>>in germany the EU constitution was "accepted" by the government.

      Interesting. The US constitution was adopted in the same fashion - by a simple vote in each of the 13 state legislatures. The people were not involved at all.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    160. Re:Differences between versions by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      West Virginia managed to successfully secede, in direct violation of the Virginia Constitution

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    161. Re:Differences between versions by kalirion · · Score: 1

      Wow, a post that contains insightful and flamebait statements in equal amounts. Not sure how that should be modded....

    162. Re:Differences between versions by toadlife · · Score: 1

      If what he claimed is a lie, then it should not be allowed. False propaganda is wrong no matter who partakes in it.

      And regarding NPR, were they lying? If not, then why are you bringing it up? I don't care about your perceived bias. I care about people lying in order to further their own cause. When a financial transaction is involved, it's called fraud and people go to jail. When important political issues are involved, it suddenly becomes okay to deceive people to further your own interests.

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
    163. Re:Differences between versions by Satanboy · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

      There are some in congress attempting to institute this policy once more.

    164. Re:Differences between versions by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      But you don't want the goverment to decide what is a lie and what is the truth.
      The NPR story was biased or it was a lie depending on how you look at it.
      Why is a 17 year old male called a boy and a 16 year old called a woman?
      A boy means not an adult and a woman means an adult.
      Depending on which way I want to go I could shut down the story on the 17 year old males because a 17 year old male is just as adult as the 16 year old female or I could kill the story on abortion since the 16 year old female is just as much a child as the 17 year old boy. Do you really want to give the government that much power?
      Again we get to opinion being confused with fact. The NPR stories are a great example. The reporter for the first story felt that a 17 year old was too young to be drafted and sent to war so in his opinion he is a child being forced to fight.
      The other has the opinion that a 16 or a 15 year old female should have the right to be treated as an adult when it comes to abortion so she is called a woman in the story.
      Back to the Titan story. To most people a big rocket and an ICBM are the same thing. Maybe he looked up Titan and saw that the Titan I and II where used as ICBMs and just didn't read far enough.
      The thing is that truth gets slippery. I have a militant liberal and a militant libertarian in my office. They where going at it tooth and nail. The liberal made the statment that once we get universal health care the cost per person will come down because it will be more efficient .
      The libertarian was giving the current cost of health care and how much it would add to each of our taxes if the government paid for it all.
      The liberal honestly believed what he was saying was factual. It can not be since it hasn't happened yet. It may come to pass but it isn't the "truth" it is an opinion.
      While the libertarian was just as sure that the government would make it more expensive than the free market and it would be yet another government money pit.
      The problem is the only facts and truth in the discussion was the current cost of health care.
      Bot where sure that they where right but both where just stating predictions and opinion.
      A lot of what you think are lies my really be opinion. I can say that I think the current administration is going to make us all wear chicken costumes to our doctors appointment if he get's his way. It would be crazy but it wouldn't be a lie if I believed it.
      I could also say that I think that the if the government runs health care it will be free and great and problem free. Again not a lie if I believed it.
      Just saying that I think this will happen makes i opinion. In fact saying anything is going to happen is opinion!
      I do agree with you that to many people are willing to stretch the truth to make there point. It is all to easy to believe that the "big picture" means more than the details. And we need to always be careful of that. But I don't want the government decided what is truth. I can tell that for myself. I am perfectly capable of looking up facts and figures.
      One trick I use to try and keep myself honest is I get my news from the source that I think is most biased. Since I think I am just a little conservative I tend to listen to NPR since I tend to feel they lean a little to the left. Actually for a fact based stuff I think NPR does a very good job. The reason I do this is that I will tend to question them more than other sources like say CNN or MSNBC. I don't watch FOX news because there news is 90% opinion shows and I hate people telling me how to think even if I agree with them. In fact the people telling you opinions that are close to what you agree with are the most dangerous! Those are the ones that can fool you.
      Yes don't trust any talking head. In fact if you think the talking head is telling you the truth then triple check because they are the ones that will trick you.
      And my opinion on health care just for the record since that is the big hot button right now is this.
      I think both sides are trying to make it fail.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    165. Re:Differences between versions by Hordeking · · Score: 1

      Jean Plantureux, the political cartoonist from France's Le Monde newspaper, came to talk to my college a few years back and explained that due to anti-Nazi laws they couldn't draw any swastikas on anyone. So what they do if they want to say somebody's a Nazi is they draw them with an armband with a white circle on it. Everyone knows exactly what the white circle means.

      I think this must be the artistic version of the euphemism treadmill, only it's forced by legal frameworks.

      --
      Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
    166. Re:Differences between versions by toadlife · · Score: 1

      We'll just have to agree to slightly disagree on the censorship issue. I understand the opinion vs fact argument. I just don't see why it's so hard to tell between the two. I agree with Micheal Moore on 9/10 things, but if what you said about the rockets is true, then what he said was, by my definition a lie.

      Regarding health care, the root of our health care problem is the profit motive. It's what makes our health care costs so much higher than every other country.

      Health care in this country is treated like a utility (everyone *must* have it) yet it is regulated like a commodity. Anytime you don't heavily regulate or nationalize a utility (something that everyone must have) price gouging happens. It's human nature. Watch the movie "Enron: The Smartest guys in the Room" for an great example of what happens when you don't regulate a utility properly. Billions of dollars were stolen from the state of California and placed into the pockets of Enron investors and CEOs as a result of deregulation.

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
    167. Re:Differences between versions by Nathrael · · Score: 1

      The difference is that in Germany, movies are accepted as an "art form" - video games however aren't (quite the contrary, they are often demonized by politicians for various reasons - Counter Strike for example is to blame for every school shooting that ever happened in Germany >_>).

      --
      A good education is a bit like a STD - it makes you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and gives you a desire to spread it.
    168. Re:Differences between versions by Nathrael · · Score: 1

      I'd rather import or less-than-legally download a game than to have a censored game (with crappy voice acting - seriously, German voice actors are horrible, and the translation of the texts themselves rarely is done well either).

      --
      A good education is a bit like a STD - it makes you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and gives you a desire to spread it.
    169. Re:Differences between versions by cas2000 · · Score: 1

      Flying the flag outside your home is not at all *common* here in Australia. It happens, but it's very rare. it's probably more common to see the Eureka flag outside of or on non-government buildings than the Australian flag, and that's usually a symbol of union movement solidarity rather than patriotism. and private display of the aboriginal flag is probably more common too (at least in the cities where most of the au population lives) - again as a symbol of solidarity.

      while Howard tried very hard during his decade as PM to introduce american-style nationalistic jingoism here, it only really worked with a small segment of the population...extreme rednecks and racists and other low-brow types. and even then it mostly only comes out at certain times of year, like around Anzac day (which, unfortunately, Howard successfully managed to convert from a day of remembrance for those who died, to a day of nationalistic propaganda for flag-waving cretins...taking advantage of the fact that there are none of the old WWI diggers left alive to undermine the glorification propaganda with their inconvenient comments)

    170. Re:Differences between versions by Enter+the+Shoggoth · · Score: 1

      Flying the flag outside your home is not at all *common* here in Australia. It happens, but it's very rare. it's probably more common to see the Eureka flag outside of or on non-government buildings than the Australian flag, and that's usually a symbol of union movement solidarity rather than patriotism. and private display of the aboriginal flag is probably more common too (at least in the cities where most of the au population lives) - again as a symbol of solidarity.

      while Howard tried very hard during his decade as PM to introduce american-style nationalistic jingoism here, it only really worked with a small segment of the population...extreme rednecks and racists and other low-brow types. and even then it mostly only comes out at certain times of year, like around Anzac day (which, unfortunately, Howard successfully managed to convert from a day of remembrance for those who died, to a day of nationalistic propaganda for flag-waving cretins...taking advantage of the fact that there are none of the old WWI diggers left alive to undermine the glorification propaganda with their inconvenient comments)

      I think you're confusing "common" with "majority", that is to say that less than 1/2 the population does it (actually quite a bit less than that I'd reckon) but it's not so rare that it stops you in your tracks with surprise. It also varies by area, you mention that asshole Howard, I live in his (former) electorate and the practice is not uncommon here, but in other areas of town (further west) the frequency of occurrence grows noticably.

      I whole heartedly agree with your summation of ANZAC day... it's now sadly a shameful display of jingoism.

      --
      Andy Warhol got it right / Everybody gets the limelight
      Andy Warhol got it wrong / Fifteen minutes is too long.
    171. Re:Differences between versions by PastaLover · · Score: 1

      In the US south confederate flags are flown often. In other parts of the world swastikas are common decoration, even decorating holy temples.

      Regardless about what you might think about the right to fly either flag, you can't seriously be comparing the nazi flag to a confederate one. The confederate flag doesn't begin to compare in terms of the evil perpetrated by those that used to march under it.

      I realise this might sound like "my historical evil is more evil than yours so meh" but it's really jarring how little people these days seem to know about the stuff that went on in WWII and the absolute horror of the aftermath when soldiers started discovering death camp after death camp after death camp...

    172. Re:Differences between versions by kLaNk · · Score: 1

      Regardless about what you might think about the right to fly either flag, you can't seriously be comparing the nazi flag to a confederate one. The confederate flag doesn't begin to compare in terms of the evil perpetrated by those that used to march under it.

      No, that wasn't the manner I was thinking about when I was comparing the two. I was comparing the two only in the vein of "the 'loser' flag which participated in a bloody conflict still being flown today".

    173. Re:Differences between versions by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      It is the the truth and it is simple to prove. THe last new ICBM that the US produced was the MX and that has been out of production for a very long time and have actually been taken out of service because of the ban on MIRV land based missiles.
      The thing is that if you depend on the government to decide what is truth then the only truth you will hear is what they want you too hear.

      People are not as dumb as most people on Slashdot think. Very few believe the extreme right or left it is just those tend to be the most vocal.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    174. Re:Differences between versions by toadlife · · Score: 1

      "The government" is made up of the people. You conservatives treat it as it's some omnipotent being in the sky. You're expectation that it will fail ends up being a self fulfilling prophecy. Reagan's proclamation that government is the problem was one of the worst things to happen to this country in the last half century. Half of the population has been conditioned to accept government failure as the norm.

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
    175. Re:Differences between versions by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Actually I am far from conservative. I am a centrist for the most part. For some things I am very liberal. I want a ban on the death penalty.
      I am conserative on other things.
      By putting a label on you make it way to easy to dismiss.
      The reason I didn't list the lies are misinformation that is on Fox news is because I never watch it. I might stop on the channel for the weather or sports scores but that is about it. I tend to get most my news from NPR.
      The people right now have decided that freedom of speech is important. You are calling for censorship which I think is always a bad thing. I can do a fair job of sorting fact from fiction myself.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    176. Re:Differences between versions by toadlife · · Score: 1

      By putting a label on you make it way to easy to dismiss.

      I am putting a label on the "government is always bad" mantra. It is a staple of conservative thought. I'm sure that many liberal minded people buy into it though.

      The people right now have decided that freedom of speech is important.

      Notice how the government suddenly becomes "the people" when they come to a decision you agree with?

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
    177. Re:Differences between versions by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Again you jump to sill conclusions.
      I never said that the government was bad. The Goverment's job is IMHO to provide essential services.
      They build roads, run schools "they need to do a better job at that", provide for the poor through welfare, WIC, and other programs, provide for the national defense, the police, and other services.
      But I don't want them censoring political speech. That is nobody's job and everybody's job.
      Each person must be their own censor and fact checker. That is why we have a free press and freedom of speech.
      If someone makes a false statment then the press can correct it.
      I fear that you too have fallen into the combative dismissive attitude that is all to prevalent in this country. You jump to an odd conclusion with no real data. Heck I even support government getting involved in health care but I want the them to do it in a step by step program so that they actually can accomplish something.

      But just to throw your last statment back at you. The people and by your own words the government seem to think that allowing those talking heads you don't like have free speech is legal.
      You are the one that is trying to go counter to the will of the people and the government by wanting to censor them.

      Actually I don't believe that honestly. I think that they bug you and want them to go away. I honestly think they have less power than you fear but I do agree that they are a polarizing force that we just don't need. But then I think the left is also a polarizing force that we also just don't need.
      At this point I am sick of the Tea Party protesters and the Health Care now protesters in equal amounts.
      I think both subjects are too important to be debated with bad manners and picket signs.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  2. While it's really just a game.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Game companies don't give up a market like Germany for a game like Wolfenstein without being pressured. And the people applying the pressure made a mistake. I looked at all the screen shots. Activision did a DamnFine (tm) job of removing the smallest traces of the Nazi insignia (not just the swastikas) all over the game. And they missed a small seal, on a plaque on the wall I'd be too busy wasting Nazis to read.

    Good job Activision! Shame the anti-Nazi folk couldn't give you a break on your Nazi-Killing-Bloodbath game, but governments are like blood, irony rich.

    1. Re:While it's really just a game.... by darkwing_bmf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Shame the anti-Nazi folk couldn't give you a break

      I'm anti-Nazi. Everyone here is (hopefully) anti-Nazi. That doesn't mean we should censor their symbols out of existence or try to ignore history.

    2. Re:While it's really just a game.... by gnick · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ignoring history (or hiding from it) seems to be the basis of these laws. It strikes me as hugely contradictory to outlaw both denying the holocaust and displaying a swastika. It's an unfortunate historical relic - Deal with it...

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    3. Re:While it's really just a game.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you should probably rethink that statement some, nazi socialism is as valad a government platform as any other, its the hitler nazism you need to hope everyone is against. Blanket statemens like all nazis are wrong is just small thinking, not my cup of tea mind you but just cause someones a nazi doesnt meen their a skinhead aryan out to kill all the jews.

    4. Re:While it's really just a game.... by Weedhopper · · Score: 1

      Ignoring history (or hiding from it) seems to be the basis of these laws. It strikes me as hugely contradictory to outlaw both denying the holocaust and displaying a swastika. It's an unfortunate historical relic - Deal with it...

      The irony here is that if you had a broader sense of history, you'd understand that of all the Axis powers of WWII that committed massive, systemized and widespread atrocities, only the Germans fully own up to their past and their history. While the Japanese have almost managed to sanitize their own history books, the Germans made a field trip to a concentration/extermination camp a mandatory part of their national education system, at least when I was there.

    5. Re:While it's really just a game.... by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Swastikas are religious symbols.
      They were used long before Hitler rotated one 45 degrees.

    6. Re:While it's really just a game.... by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      In the 40's and 50's there was a real risk of folks who were Nazi sympathizers restarting the party and using it to take over the fairly democratic government of West Germany. So the laws against swastikas made perfect sense. Now, any German politician who proposes repealing those laws could easily be accused of trying to bring back the policies of the Third Reich and (thankfully, in my opinion) be promptly voted out of office.

      Nazi-ism is and will probably always be a very touchy subject in Germany. Sort of how Confederate symbolism is a very touchy subject in the US. For instance, look at this piece about The Producers getting produced in Berlin.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    7. Re:While it's really just a game.... by ioshhdflwuegfh · · Score: 1

      [...] It strikes me as hugely contradictory to outlaw both denying the holocaust and displaying a swastika.

      Would you care to argument what is the contradiction, or is the "hugely" already sufficient?

      It's an unfortunate historical relic - Deal with it...

      They are exactly doing that.

    8. Re:While it's really just a game.... by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 1

      The irony here is that if you had a broader sense of history, you'd understand that of all the Axis powers of WWII that committed massive, systemized and widespread atrocities, only the Germans fully own up to their past and their history. While the Japanese have almost managed to sanitize their own history books, the Germans made a field trip to a concentration/extermination camp a mandatory part of their national education system, at least when I was there.

      None of the allies has owned up to their atrocities either. The firebombing of cities (like Dresden) by the British and Americans, Japanese internment camps in the US, soviet ethnic cleansing, etc. I don't think it's Verboten in order to ignore history either but rather they are so ashamed of that part of their history they have effectively turned it into a taboo. "Nie wieder" (never again) isn't just idle talk for them (based on the germans I know at least.)

      --
      If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
    9. Re:While it's really just a game.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nazi symbols are only forbidden if they aren't used for educational purposes.

      Every child in Germany learns about Hitler and all that in great detail in school, there are lots of commemoration days, in official speeches it is usually emphasized that we should never forget about what happened so it won't happen again, there are a lot of memorials (and even more are being built...) and more things like that.. So I wouldn't say it is all the purpose is to ignore or deny history.

      Of course one might argue that 60 years are long enough and it isn't really necessary anymore nowadays...

    10. Re:While it's really just a game.... by gnick · · Score: 1

      [...] It strikes me as hugely contradictory to outlaw both denying the holocaust and displaying a swastika.

      Would you care to argument what is the contradiction, or is the "hugely" already sufficient?

      Sure. Denying the holocaust is illegal (and moronic). Forbidding the display of the swastika is hiding from the holocaust. Ignoring for the moment that it's an ancient symbol with multiple interpretations, in Germany it's mostly a reminder of a terrible period in their history. Forbidding its use, even in a game about killing Nazis, falls short of denying the holocaust, but is akin to hiding it.

      It's an unfortunate historical relic - Deal with it...

      They are exactly doing that.

      No, they're not. They're burying their past because it's ugly. They have good reasons for doing that as there is still wide-spread antisemitism and a noticeable population of violent skin-heads (at least last time I was there) and they want to quell that. But, despite their good intentions, hiding legitimate artifacts from WWII (like banning swastikas from video games) is not dealing with the problem, it's burying it.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    11. Re:While it's really just a game.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not about ignoring history, it's about guilt and anger. It's about denying Nazis their place in history, giving them not even the honor of remembrance. Which isn't really ideal from a historical record standpoint; but that's not what they're thinking about.

    12. Re:While it's really just a game.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you want the US to 'own up' to Japanese internment camps?

      I learned about them in HS, we watched and did a HW assignment on the glorified promotional videos made at the time, and I remember it now.

      What More do you want?

    13. Re:While it's really just a game.... by smithmc · · Score: 1

      you should probably rethink that statement some, nazi socialism is as valad a government platform as any other

      You seem to imply that all political platforms are equally valid. Not everyone would agree with you.

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
    14. Re:While it's really just a game.... by Bakkster · · Score: 1

      The German people are very touchy about the subject, quite understandably. They may have gone overboard to prevent a relapse, but consider the following:

      Imagine the KKK were to gain a majority of the House, Senate, and gain the Presidency. Imagine the military leaders are also members of the KKK. The government then violently cracks down on dissent and encourages vandalism of any property that does not belong to a 'white' person. Soon, members of other races are rounded up into forced labor and publicly hanged. The government then invades neighboring nations (with the stated intent of annexing them) and ignites a war that spans the globe.

      After it was all over, do you not expect there would be a MASSIVE backlash to prevent the KKK from returning? Whether this was the correct decision or not, it's something that the Germans are as guarded against preventing as Americans are for slavery, if not more so.

      --
      Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
    15. Re:While it's really just a game.... by insertwackynamehere · · Score: 1

      Yeah it's too bad for Dresden, where, you know, munitions were being manufactured and all. It's not like the Germans made it a point to bomb civilian London nightly or anything.

    16. Re:While it's really just a game.... by insertwackynamehere · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      You're probably trolling but anyone that thinks National Socialism had any actual legitimacy and wasn't just a bullshit platform used to put fascist leaders in power so that they could do whatever they wanted including commit genocide, are fucking morons. The Nazi Party was created by Hitler and once he gained power, he was just another dictator. Anyone holding on to the views of "National Socialism" and claim that its not related to racism and anti-semitism are edgy fucking morons who pop chubbies thinking of ways to prove their cutting edge individuality or extremely insincere idiots.

    17. Re:While it's really just a game.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Displaying a swastika is outlawed outside of a historical or educational context. Which is not ignoring or hiding from history, but our societies way of saying that "this shit is serious. Don't play games with it".
      So we are dealing with it. Leave it to us, please (and maybe try to learn a thing or two from our history).

    18. Re:While it's really just a game.... by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Now, any German politician who proposes repealing those laws could easily be accused of trying to bring back the policies of the Third Reich and (thankfully, in my opinion) be promptly voted out of office.

      Unfortunately that doesn't seem to people like Schäuble who actually try to bring those policies back.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    19. Re:While it's really just a game.... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      None of the allies has owned up to their atrocities either. The firebombing of cities (like Dresden) by the British

      We don't? Because, I'm fairly sure I remember learning about the firebombing of Dresden in school in the UK, including seeing pictures of the aftermath.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    20. Re:While it's really just a game.... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      This is not quite true. Hitler was assigned to the (existing) German Workers Party party by the government (specifically the Reichswehr) to see if they were a threat. He decided that they weren't, but could be used as a platform for his ideas. He did not found the party, he co-opted it. The anti-semitism was there before Hitler joined, and was what made the platform so attractive to the populous: People love having someone to blame in times of economic depression. Imagine replacing 'Jew' with 'Banker' in some of the Nazi propaganda, and you'll have a platform that a lot of people would rally around now, and the current recession is a lot less severe than the economic climate in Germany before Hitler came to power.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    21. Re:While it's really just a game.... by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      Ignoring history (or hiding from it) seems to be the basis of these laws.

      No. That is not the reason for these laws. The reason for these laws is that the Germans are trying to avoid repeating history.

      While many Slashdotters are indeed in the hardcore libertarian camp, even they must acknowledge the power of mass media and its influence, good and bad, over public opinion. Look at the effect of Hollywood films, from the trivial to the profound. What do you think would happen if blockbuster remakes of films like "Birth of a Nation" or "The Eternal Jew" were allowed to become the major summer hits next year? Are you telling me that the public would rationally choose to reject such racism? I love to believe that, I really would.

      Remember what started the whole global warming hysteria? It was that movie(or was it two) about super freezing storms or flood or something. It was a major hit. The Day After Tomorrow, I think. The science had been screaming the results for 40 years and nobody had batted an eyelid. After that summer, everybody was a convert. I am NOT using this as an argument against the reality of human induced climate change. What I am saying is that the media has the ability to very rapidly shift public opinion and temperament on more issues that just this.

      There are other examples. The original Birth of a Nation lead to the revival of the Ku Klux Klan. The China Syndrome, released contemporaneously with the Three Mile Island incident, has halted the expansion of nuclear power generation to this day. Jurassic Park popularised dinosaurs as never before, ultimately forcing creationism to rebrand itself as intelligent design. More recently, that Zeitgeist crock of shit has managed to snare more than a few supposedly educated people, some of them around here.

      Movies can literally transform public opinion en-masse in a single summer season. Their largest audience is young impressionable people, the traditional movers of society. They sit and immerse themselves mentally and emotionally in an audio-visual presentation for over an hour. It affects people more deeply than they know. Frankly, I think that the immersion experienced in movies is greater than the immersion in video games or books. This summer people are going to watch a film about the July 20th plot to assassinate Hitler. It's more than likely going to be a story about good guys verses evil guys. That's what people are going to take from it, despite the fact that most of the would be assassins were Wehrmacht officers intimately involved in the many Nazi atrocities on the eastern front. The film will become history and the truth will be forgotten.

      The sad fact is that if films, or games, or TV shows glorifying the Nazi regime were to be allowed to be shown en masse, not only Germany, but a great many other Western countries would recede into fascism and genocide. And yes, the whole process can be precipitated by one or two films. Just look at what one talk show host like Glenn Beck is able to do to public opinion over one summer season. I don't want to wake up one September to find that my neighbors are all spouting neofascist slogans and marching in fascist bands or whatever other mass movement these films can persuade them to engage in.

      Yes, I do think that the German government goes overboard in censorship in many cases, including this one. But you fail to understand the power, influence and history of Nazi imagery, and to say that the Germans are ignorant of that history or somehow hiding it is a profoundly ignorant comment to make.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    22. Re:While it's really just a game.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The sad fact is that if films, or games, or TV shows glorifying the Nazi regime were to be allowed to be shown en masse, not only Germany, but a great many other Western countries would recede into fascism and genocide.

      Are you suggesting that Wolfenstein, a game where you play the hero in charge of butchering Nazis en masse, is somehow glorifying the Nazi regime?

    23. Re:While it's really just a game.... by Yunzil · · Score: 1

      Ergo, we should ban anything that might give people, you know, ideas.

    24. Re:While it's really just a game.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Censoring a video game that uses a fictional Nazi setting is not exactly ignoring history.

      Showing the swastika in documentaries about the nazi time is perfectly legal (and common) in Germany.

    25. Re:While it's really just a game.... by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 1

      Yeah it's too bad for Dresden, where, you know, munitions were being manufactured and all. It's not like the Germans made it a point to bomb civilian London nightly or anything.

      First off, Dresden had industry which was of minor importance at best and a lot were already moved out of the city, not at all comparable to a strategic target such as London. Secondly there's a word for leveling a city (indiscriminate bombing of civilians, some report specifically targeting civilian over infrastructure targets) to achieve a minor goal : warcrime.

      --
      If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
    26. Re:While it's really just a game.... by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 1

      I'll take your word for it. I was led to believe (by documentaries here on the continent) it's rather obscure and most people don't know that its morality is seen as controversial. But so much the better.

      --
      If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
    27. Re:While it's really just a game.... by xtracto · · Score: 1

      Ignoring history (or hiding from it) seems to be the basis of these laws.

      The funny thing about the censoring of the game is that, the game itself is about the "good guys" (player) kicking the ass of the "bad guys" (Swastika-happy) so that good triumph against evil.

      I guess that, even if I was German, I would fill realized by killing the bunch of assholes that committed such atrocities (at least, doing it in a virtual world).

      It would be a nice "spin" to give by a magazine, putting this image-change/censorship as a statement of "we do not allow you to kill/attack the National Socialists".

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    28. Re:While it's really just a game.... by gullevek · · Score: 1

      Actually by that time there was no industry left. Furthermore they didn't target the factories only they just flat out bombed everything.

      But this is war, war is always a crime. On both sides.

      --
      "Freiheit ist immer auch die Freiheit des Andersdenkenden" - Rosa Luxemburg, 1871 - 1919
    29. Re:While it's really just a game.... by insertwackynamehere · · Score: 1

      How was London a strategic target again? Because bombing homes and buildings within close proximity to homes would kill British civilians and cause many others to lose morale? I'm sorry but this strange contrarian stance in favor of Germany doesn't actually make sense because the axis was leveling civilian cities as well (London? Paris? Everywhere they invaded?)

    30. Re:While it's really just a game.... by insertwackynamehere · · Score: 1

      Lol yeah totally dude because just like the Banks, the Jews were actually extremely responsible for the depression.. oh wait no sorry in America we get upset about the people who actually do hurt us, not scapegoat everything onto someone else

    31. Re:While it's really just a game.... by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 1

      Well, It's the capital and so it holds a lot of the administration, archives, symbolically important buildings and sites. You'd expect an enemy to strike against your capital if only to show they can. It's also a port and a distribution hub. And I'm not pro German, in fact the city I live in was hit by v2 rockets *hard* (we were a strategic port too) and I don't dispute both sides were bastards. The operative word being "both".

      The same goes for any war. In fact I don't think there's a country in Europe left that hasn't committed despicable acts in one of their wars (maybe Lichtenstein).

      --
      If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
  3. censorship by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Apparently this is the reason that it has to be pulled from the market. I don't know about you but I find the rationale for this type of censorship to be utterly absurd. So much for free speech.....

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    1. Re:censorship by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No kidding. Seems like Germans would have learned a thing or two about the negative aspects of authoritarianism. Censorship, even well intentioned, can easily turn into repression. Freedom of expression protects everyone.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      the rationale for this type of censorship ... is to expand government in terms of both power and revenue. Same as the rationale for every other type of censorship.

      You're not in the business of government, are you?

    3. Re:censorship by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, it's almost like Germany never ratified the United States Bill of Rights...

    4. Re:censorship by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Free Speech is an inalienable right, not something doled out to you by a friendly Governmental overlord. Nice try though.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    5. Re:censorship by DarkDust · · Score: 1

      Well, it's an old thing in games here in Germany. Basically, the law forbids to show "anti-constitutional" symbols (unless it's in a historic, educational and/or satiric context). According to the German Wikipedia entry this law was made by the Allied Control Council during their move to forbid the NSDAP and its symbols. It was then taken over into our "Grundgesetz" (think constitution) and AFAIK you need more than a normal majority to change a "Grundgesetz" law which would make it very hard to change the law. Especially since a lot of people here in Germany still are afraid that right-winged people might ever gain too much ground again. We want to keep right-winged people to from glorifying the Nazi time and we want to keep them from using their symbols, if possible. The english Wikipedia also has an article regarding that issue.

    6. Re:censorship by DarkDust · · Score: 4, Informative

      The law was done by the Allied Control Council and was then taken over into our "Grundgesetz" (constitution). So you can blame your politicians for our censorship, in a sense ;-) Still, most of us Germans regard the law to be a non-issue. It's meant to keep right-winged people from glorifying the Nazis. Normally, it's only an issue if you're right-winged or a game maker placing your game in WWII.

    7. Re:censorship by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>Seems like [the World] would have learned a thing or two about the negative aspects of authoritarianism...

      Fixed. And yet still we have stupid laws being passed that restrict freedom of speech, not just in Germany, but also throughout the EU, the US, Australia, and other supposedly "liberal" countries.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    8. Re:censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have something even more absurd for you: recently some people in Southern Germany got sued for using stickers with crossed out swastikas.

      cb

    9. Re:censorship by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but when the supreme law of the land is the GOVERNMENT and not PEOPLE (or gasp a "god") then the ULTIMATE authority that gives you that "Right" is the Government.

      This is the problem with people who think that "society" has rights that can intrude on the rights of a mere citizen.

      We are a people of laws, but the supreme law of the land is given to the states, or to the people, not to the FEDS. The US government is already totalitarian. We're just the frogs in the pot and haven't noticed the heat.

      Any government regulation that requires extortion(threat of and by force) to work is by definition totalitarian.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    10. Re:censorship by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We want to keep right-winged people to from glorifying the Nazi time and we want to keep them from using their symbols, if possible.

      In other words you want to restrict their freedom of political expression because you find their ideals abhorrent. You can justify it any way that you wish but it's still censorship. Personally I find the notion of censoring a Nazi to be as offensive as his political goals if not more so -- because we ought to know better.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    11. Re:censorship by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      May I ask what your religious belief is? If atheist, agnostic or similar, may I then ask where this right originates from and who determines the limits of that free speech?

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    12. Re:censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems like Germany alienated it. There goes your "inalienable right."

    13. Re:censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is not censorship, it preemptive compliance to a perceived risk. No one ever forced the company to remove any swastikas or blood and gore. They did it because they wanted to avoid a public discussion.

      It's often said that it's not allowed to depict these things in Germany, which is definitely not true. You'll find plenty of these in movies without them being banned either as this falls under the freedom of art, and the same is true for games as well. The publisher simply chooses not to show these things because they don't want to even risk getting criticized by overambitious politicians (and often to get a more favorable age rating in order to increase sales)

    14. Re:censorship by DarkDust · · Score: 1

      Recently ? That was years ago and the courts ruled it to be legal, on several occasions now.

    15. Re:censorship by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Free Speech is an inalienable right, not something doled out to you by a friendly Governmental overlord.

      Limitations on the rather broadly defined "Nazi propaganda" were imposed on Germany by the Allies - including U.S., which fully supported this measure - after WW2 as a precondition of it becoming a sovereign state again.

    16. Re:censorship by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

      Hop over to Iran and slam Mohammed. See how your Free Speech is handled.

      The friendly overlord defines what you can and cannot say. Disobey and be killed.

      Nice Try though.

    17. Re:censorship by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      And Germany has been sovereign for what... 60 years?

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    18. Re:censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In your belief system perhaps ...

    19. Re:censorship by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

      (I happen to agree it's an inalienable right, but) one of the interesting things about inalienable rights is that not everyone agrees just what they all are.

      So regardless of what rights we have inherently, it's a good idea to go through the political process and have government pass laws to protect those rights. At least after that happens, we all have notice of which of our rights are protected, and which ones we have to protect for ourselves (by force, subterfuge, or whatever).

      If the German people, overall, are willing to use deadly force against people who exercise their right to sell games where players kill Nazis, then it's good that German law does not protect people's right to sell games where players kill Nazis. Otherwise there would be a conflict and you're eventually going to get into a situation where cops and citizens are shooting at each other in the streets. The way to protect rights is to persuade a (strong) majority that it's a bad idea to infringe rights. In fact, it's the only way. Having laws that are contrary to the actual will of the people, just isn't a stable and sensible situation.

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    20. Re:censorship by oyenstikker · · Score: 1

      Just because you think it should be an inalienable right does not make it so.

      Might makes right.

      --
      The masses are the crack whores of religion.
    21. Re:censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a matter of perspective, isn't it? Your government sees Free Speech as an inalienable right. Other governments have other ideas of how free speech should be. It's not just a matter of rights, it's cultural norms.

      But perhaps since the US sees free speech as an inalienable right, it should overthrow the oppresive German regime and force our flavor of democracy on them.

    22. Re:censorship by JerRocks · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Back in the early nineties when Wolfenstein 3D was all the rage, a friend came over with a German exchange student and I fired up the game to show them how cool it was. The German kid freaked out. I assumed at the time it was because it was all about killing Germans... but maybe it was simply due to the existence of swastikas...

    23. Re:censorship by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Free speech was considered an inalienable by the writers of the US Bill of Rights (or at least, that's what they wrote down).

      That does not make it so. (I believe it is.)

    24. Re:censorship by DarkDust · · Score: 1

      We want to keep right-winged people to from glorifying the Nazi time and we want to keep them from using their symbols, if possible.

      In other words you want to restrict their freedom of political expression because you find their ideals abhorrent. You can justify it any way that you wish but it's still censorship. Personally I find the notion of censoring a Nazi to be as offensive as his political goals if not more so -- because we ought to know better.

      I absolutely agree that trying to outlaw "thoughts" or symbols is absolutely useless and that it is censorship. But it seems you missed my point. The point was that this law is there for historic reasons and can't go away since it's a very sensitive issue here. If you propose to kick that law people would suspect you're far right-winged and that's a serious accusation here. And so most politician wouldn't vote to change it, fearing to lose voters over this issue.

    25. Re:censorship by Hatta · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's meant to keep right-winged people from glorifying the Nazis.

      By quashing political dissent, you are becoming like the Nazis. Let the right wingers openly glorify the nazis, so reasonable moderate people can see just how awful they are. Here in the states we let the KKK march freely, and usually the protests over the march are bigger than the klan march itself. If you do not trust your populace to make the right choice when fully informed, how can you even pretend to be democratic?

      By singling out Nazis as forbidden by the government, you have codified them as a de facto opposition group to the state. Those who feel disenfranchised will look to the obvious enemy of your government for support. This strengthens the Nazis as opposed to simply ignoring them. Slashdotters will know this as the Streisand Effect.

      If you really want to prevent Nazis from gaining power again, don't outright ban them in your constitution. Codify principles incompatible with Naziism in your constitution. Freedom of religion, Freedom of Expression, etc. As long as Freedom of Expression is not protected by your constitution, it can be taken away from you. When (not if) that happens, do you really care if it was the Nazis or some other group?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    26. Re:censorship by ioshhdflwuegfh · · Score: 1

      Free Speech is an inalienable right,[...]

      If by inalienable you mean that the American notion of free speech cannot be transferred to Europe, then I agree.

    27. Re:censorship by ioshhdflwuegfh · · Score: 1

      (I happen to agree it's an inalienable right, but) one of the interesting things about inalienable rights is that not everyone agrees just what they all are.

      Then what are you (dis)agreeing here with?

    28. Re:censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Free Speech is an inalienable right, ...

      In your country. Nice try though.

    29. Re:censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hardly. With the idea of free speech, you can say whatever you want without being reprimanded. However, some expressions can result in severe punishment, regardless of what country you live in. It's a nice concept, but it simply doesn't work due to our condition of being human.

    30. Re:censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You only get to have your "inalienable rights" if you have a Government to protect them. Your right to life wouldn't mean dick if there was no entity to outlaw & punish murder.

    31. Re:censorship by amplt1337 · · Score: 1

      Free Speech is an inalienable right

      There is no such thing as an inalienable right -- such a thing has no objective existence.

      A (legal) right is an action which the government is legally unable to prohibit you from taking. It has a specific, grounded, legal reality.
      "Inalienable rights" are alienated all the time (how inalienable is your right to free speech in Iran, or to own weapons in Britain?) What the statement "there is an inalienable right to freedom of speech" really means, is "I think all people everywhere should have a legal right to freedom of expression." I agree with you, of course, but I acknowledge that my opinion doesn't reflect an part of objective reality. It's a desire or goal.
      As a result, naturally, the scope of those "inalienable rights" varies from person to person. For instance, I believe in an "inalienable right" (i.e., I believe everyone should have the legal right) to marry anyone and everyone one chooses, as long as all parties involved are competent to consent and actually do consent. Many people in America would not acknowledge an inalienable right to gay marriage or polygamy. That disagreement isn't a disagreement about the nature of reality that can be solved by pointing to some objective evidence; it's an opinion.

      If "inalienable rights" were an objective property of the universe, it would not be possible to have culturally specific, substantially divergent views of what they are.

      --
      Freedom isn't free; its price is the well-being of others.
    32. Re:censorship by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 1

      Well it's in their constitution, right?

    33. Re:censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please try that in Singapore, Indonesia, China, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia (hell, almost all of the mid-east), Russia, most of the *stan and *jan states of the former Soviet Union (see Uzbekistan and Azerbaijan as examples). And then we come to Africa and places like Zimbabwe, Congo, Somalia, Kenya, etc.

      In all of these countries it is the people, never mind the government, that will lynch you anytime you are outside of what is acceptable in their societies. Maybe in the US, Canada and Western Europe you can go prancing around naked man with a rainblow flag and at worse get arrested. In most of the rest of the world you'll be killed by the locals.

      So try your free speech mantra somewhere else than the western world. You'll very quickly see how nicely you'll be accepted by the gov't and the locals.

    34. Re:censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wow - you should tell some of the repressive regimes out there

      i'm they'll be mortified that they have been denying someone their inalienable right and will rewrite their (equivalent of a) constitution to include human rights provisions post haste!

    35. Re:censorship by smithmc · · Score: 1

      Free Speech is an inalienable right, not something doled out to you by a friendly Governmental overlord. Nice try though.

      Nonsense. The only rights that exist, belong to those people who are willing to stand up and say they have those rights, and are willing to defend them against those who would take them away. They are only "inalienable" to the extent that We the People agree that they are, and empower our "friendly governmental overlords" to enshrine them in law and protect them by force (or, if you're an anarchist, are willing to protect them by force on your own). Anything else is rose-colored-glasses wishful thinking.

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
    36. Re:Censorship by tenco · · Score: 1

      It's not hidden. It's teached in school and documentations on TV. As i wrote in two other posts, Nazi symbols are not banned if they are used for educational purposes.

    37. Re:censorship by Kjella · · Score: 1

      The swastika represents an ideology that wants to deny many people fundamental freedoms, and it's always been a discussion whether these freedoms should support people that want to take the freedoms away. It's freedom of speech right up until you have a party getting 50,1% for taking it away, then they'll try doing it. Actually taking it away would be a violation of your rights, so basically you're willing to defend them right up until the point they stab you in the face.

      Of course political parties can argue for changing the law, so that what today is illegal becomes legal. But it's nowhere near the same as arguing that certain human rights should cease to exist, at least for certain ethnic groups, religions or sexual preferences. Without getting to far into existential questions on human rights it's pretty much by definition rights that the tyranny of the majority should not be able to take away.

      I know that many people here on slashdot are very much in favor of free speech. That if we just let the neonazis and every other creepy group out there talk their hollow talk, then truth, justice and reason will shine through them like vampires in daylight. Germany has first-hand experience that this is wrong. They know that under the right circumstances you can whip up a frenzy where a people are willing to commit great atrocities.

      Quite frankly, I find it almost amusing that you suggest Germany hasn't looked enough into learning from its past. There's hardly a country on earth that has studied its past more than Germany, compared to being an ideology lasting less than 15 years its long, dark shadows have had a profound influence lasting much longer. They think of it more like a cancer that can't be allowed to grow, they might be right...

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    38. Re:censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are talking about 2006. That's merely three years ago. I am old enough to call three years recently. Why didn't you say "ages ago"?

      And there were convictions in the lower courts. So not only prosecution went mad on this but also the courts. At least some got overturned eventually by higher courts, because the convicts fought against the rulings. Do you know if all rulings got overturned? Do you want to celebrate the fact, that people had to fight several instances for not being convicted of carrying crossed out swastikas? Because "it wasn't clear if these people were fascist or anti-fascist"?

      Crossed out swastikas, swastikas being put into litter boxes. Oh yes, the similar icons on the chewing gum wrappings mean you should fetch chewing gums from litter boxes and not dispose your waste there. The crossed out cigarettes mean you should smoke where this icon was placed. Icons could be so misleading sometimes...

      cb

    39. Re:censorship by insertwackynamehere · · Score: 1

      Das ist game der Deutschland mord! Achtung!! ACHTUNG!! Mein mutter und vatter ich bin dissapointed vith das!! SCHUSTAFFEL!! ICH BIN NACHT!!!! NEIN JAWOL PANZERFAUST!!!

    40. Re:censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somebody give this guy a WHOLE BOX of Cookies, awesome comment.

    41. Re:censorship by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      OK, to be fair, it isn't that easy to morph the censorship of a symbol into general oppression. The point is that it's a step down a path of which we'd rather never see the end.

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    42. Re:censorship by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      No, free speech is something doled out through US cultural imperialism.

      The US constitution. It's got what people crave!

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    43. Re:censorship by Monsuco · · Score: 1

      I don't know about you but I find the rationale for this type of censorship to be utterly absurd. So much for free speech.....

      Free speech vanished in Europe as soon as people figured out it was sometimes offensive. Now speech that is "hateful" such as showing an unpleasant moment in history, mocking radical Islam (you can mock Christians, and radical Islamic groups can safely threaten to kill Danish cartoonist who criticize them, but that is because Christians are in the majority and Muslims are in the minority), or expressing an opinion outside of the mainstream is classified as "hate speech" in the name of protecting people from being offended.

      Sadly, this is slowly creeping into America. Our 1st Amendment protects us from most of it, but "speech codes" on colleges, harassment, slander, and libel laws, and the occasional threat of censorship of talk radio (and now the internet) to provide "balance" are threats.

    44. Re:censorship by VirginMary · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You are incredibly naive! Not only was outlawing Naziism pretty much imposed on our government by your government and its allies, (so much for your "Freedom of Expression"), but you seem to think that putting some nice sounding principles into a constitution guarantees citizens rights. We have a saying in Germany: "Paper is patient." This means that you can write whatever you like down on paper but it doesn't necessarily mean anything! Communist East Germany had a beautiful constitution granting its citizens all kinds of rights which they didn't actually have in practice! Also it seems to me that what your constitution means changes with the composition of your Supreme Court judges. Furthermore it is extremely easy to ignore or misinterpret constitutions and countries ideals as witnessed by the many US citizens that firmly believe that the US started out and was intended to be a Christian state.

      --
      When 1person suffers from a delusion,it is called insanity.When many people suffer from a delusion,it is called religion
    45. Re:censorship by DancesWithBlowTorch · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Sorry, but you are ignorant.

      By quashing political dissent, you are becoming like the Nazis. Let the right wingers openly glorify the nazis, so reasonable moderate people can see just how awful they are. Here in the states we let the KKK march freely, and usually the protests over the march are bigger than the klan march itself. If you do not trust your populace to make the right choice when fully informed, how can you even pretend to be democratic?

      Freedom of Expression is guaranteed by the German Constitution. There are Nazi marches in Germany and the corresponding, much larger, counter-marches, just like those KKK marches in the state that you are referring to. Nobody suggested those were forbidden. The only "expression" that is expressively forbidden is denial of the Holocaust, and that law is simply a special, very strict case of legislation against libel.

      If you really want to prevent Nazis from gaining power again, don't outright ban them in your constitution. Codify principles incompatible with Naziism in your constitution. Freedom of religion, Freedom of Expression, etc. As long as Freedom of Expression is not protected by your constitution, it can be taken away from you. When (not if) that happens, do you really care if it was the Nazis or some other group?

      The German Constitution does not ban National Socialism. It codifies human and civic rights, like those that you mention, and several others (most importantly, the right to dignity). You have clearly never read it, otherwise you wouldn't lecture about it like this.

      German law strikes a different balance between Freedom of Expression and the Protection from Intimidation than the Anglo-American system, because of the country's history. Imagine living in what was arguably the world's most industrially advanced, culturally influential, progressive country. Then, one day, the houses of parliament are disbanded by armed paramilitaries. Your intellectual elite is driven into exile or killed. Almost all civic rights are abolished. About eight to ten Million Jews, politicial dissidents, Gays, Roma, mentally ill and others are killed. Finally, your country goes on to unleash the world's deadliest ever war, killing well above 30 Million people in the battlefields. I think you can be forgiven for outlawing the symbols of the movement that caused all this afterward.

      Jeez, people, everytime anything related to this law comes up, everyone starts crying censorship. There is one small bloody set of symbols that's forbidden. One stupid verse of a song, and one stupid greeting. That's it! It's not like Germany had a censorship agency. In most of the United States, you can't even take a piss in public! How's that for freedom of expression?

    46. Re:censorship by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      And Germany has been sovereign for what... 60 years?

      Less than 20, actually.....

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    47. Re:censorship by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      The Streisand effect is about information, not political leaning. Or did the US see a sudden surge in the popularity of communism during the McCarthy era?

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    48. Re:censorship by HockeyPuck · · Score: 1

      By singling out Nazis as forbidden by the government, you have codified them as a de facto opposition group to the state. Those who feel disenfranchised will look to the obvious enemy of your government for support. This strengthens the Nazis as opposed to simply ignoring them. Slashdotters will know this as the Streisand Effect.

      So let's see what other groups are illegal? Murderers, rapists, pedophiles, drug dealers....

      So we should then legalize these groups otherwise they will grow in numbers. I don't recall all the people that hated George W. Bush becoming murderers, rapists or pedophiles.

    49. Re:censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I looked it up. In 2007 the highest German Court in this matter stopped this nonsense. Hopefully prosecution and judges get the clue as well...

      cb

    50. Re:censorship by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      You can claim that about anything, doesn't make it true. In Germany you lose the right to freedom of expression if you abuse it to undermine the democratic foundation of the country. We're just more open about it, any country will get you if you try to destroy it, the charges will just carry different names.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    51. Re:Censorship by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Maybe they should make a FPS where you have to shoot Nazis. Of course it's for educational reasons: You shall learn that Nazis are your enemy.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    52. Re:censorship by superdana · · Score: 1

      By quashing political dissent, you are becoming like the Nazis.

      Oh please. I'm all for free speech, but this is just absurd. Outlawing swastikas doesn't kill six million Jews.

      Please don't use the word Nazi as a synonym for authoritarian. You do a disservice to the unbelievable number of people they killed.

    53. Re:censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but the part you are missing is that the Nazi's *were* relatives of these people. They are stuck in an awkward situation of not liking what their realtives did yet still having trouble hating their relatives for doing it.

      THAT's the key issue here. Your not only bringing up a sore spot of their history, your grazing the sore spot in a very personal kind of way.

    54. Re:censorship by Hatta · · Score: 1

      The only "expression" that is expressively forbidden is denial of the Holocaust, and that law is simply a special, very strict case of legislation against libel.

      If that is true, why is Wolfenstein being recalled in Germany?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    55. Re:censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've got it the wrong way around.

      They British started the war (Chamberlain declared war on Germany over Poland).
      The Holocaust began only after the United States had entered the war.

    56. Re:Censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's teached in school

      Dear sweet jesus didn't they learn you better grammar than that in school?

    57. Re:censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell that to the jews...

    58. Re:censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have to agree with the Germans here. The swazi because of its history will almost certainly always mean two very different things depending where you live or who you worship. But the vileness that it represents to modern day Germans, Jews, gays or any other group that has been oppressed shouldn't be overlooked.

      We can also look to our own history to find some symbols in Americas past that aren't really popular in certain groups.

    59. Re:censorship by lwsimon · · Score: 1

      The concept of America as a Christian nation isn't misinterpretation, it's one of two things, depending on the person: lack of education, or religious bias.

      America is a nation founded by rational men. Some of those men were Christians, some were Deists, and some were Atheist or Agnostic.

      --
      Learn about Photography Basics.
    60. Re:censorship by lwsimon · · Score: 1

      Natural rights are not necessarily dependent upon religion. To some atheists, they exist because they are apparent, not because the were granted.

      --
      Learn about Photography Basics.
    61. Re:censorship by lwsimon · · Score: 1

      I think we agree, but you're not being clear.

      Our rights as individuals - life, Liberty, private property, self defense, etc. - are not granted by a government, they are inherent within each person. The US government, as founded, merely recognized those rights. The current government barely gives them lipservice.

      The people of the colonies formed regional legislatures on the state level to enact fair laws. Those legislatures in turn gave a portion of their power to a confederation (which failed) and later, to a federal government. Therefore, the power to govern in an attribute of the individual, bestowed upon the state, and delegated to a federal government.

      What we have today is a strange, dangerous mutation of that federal government. The time to overthrow it or force it to live within its boundaries is 150 years gone.

      --
      Learn about Photography Basics.
    62. Re:censorship by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 1

      This means that you can write whatever you like down on paper but it doesn't necessarily mean anything!

      And you think banning swastikas can prevent this from happening? Interesting.

    63. Re:censorship by VirginMary · · Score: 1

      And you think banning swastikas can prevent this from happening? Interesting.

      I didn't say that and I don't! Apparently the American government right after the end of the 2nd World War did though.

      --
      When 1person suffers from a delusion,it is called insanity.When many people suffer from a delusion,it is called religion
    64. Re:censorship by julesh · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's almost like Germany never ratified the United States Bill of Rights...

      They may not have done. But they have ratified the European Convention on Human Rights, which has stuff to say about things like this...

    65. Re:censorship by dunkelfalke · · Score: 4, Informative

      It doesn't even go that far. Nazi symbols are only forbidden when they aren't shown in a historical context.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    66. Re:censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes... interesting that its illegal in Germany to dipict Nazi party in a bad light, or depict the killing of said Nazis.
      One would almost suspect that former Nazis had a hand in the extreme lengths the law went.

    67. Re:censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is why you have small arms identical to that of the military, guaranteed in our 2nd Amendment.

      Oh, wait.

    68. Re:censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "We have a saying in Germany: "Paper is patient." This means that you can write whatever you like down on paper but it doesn't necessarily mean anything! Communist East Germany had a beautiful constitution granting its citizens all kinds of rights which they didn't actually have in practice!"

      hich is why we have a saying in America: "From my cold, dead hands..."

    69. Re:censorship by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      We went over this about a million times on /.. American society was built on the notion that there is nothing worse than lack of freedom. This is reflected in American laws and mores. German society was built on the notion that there is one thing worse then lack of freedom: National socialism. Thus, German laws and mores place "be free" high and "don't be a Nazi" higher. (Actually, the first article of our Basic Law is "Human dignity shall be inviolable", but the Nazi thing sits deeper.)

      That doesn't mean we're cool with any kind of censorship. In fact, one of the most contested laws as of late was an (immediately subverted) anti-child porn internet censorship bill. Non-total freedom does not mean the country immediately devolves into a banana republic, as we demonstrate - just as you demonstrate that a lack of Nazi suppression does not mean the country immediately becomes the incarnation of all evil.

      Besides, we have lots of "enemies of the state". If I wanted to, I could vote for the Marxist-Leninist party, but I'm not that stupid. Besides, there are a couple ultra-right-wing parties in Germany who are essentially skinhead congregations. They're more popular than the communists but still decidedly fringe.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    70. Re:censorship by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Also, they're just being rather strict for video games (which is a general trend in Germany; video game violence is also much less tolerated than movie violence). I can watch the Indiana Jones movies with all their swastikas and Heil Hitlers as much as I want.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    71. Re:censorship by selven · · Score: 1

      Freedom of expression is a good idea irrespective of the fact that the US and its WW2 allies are its main proponents. Saying that it isn't is an ad hominem.

    72. Re:censorship by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      So you're trying to compare actions to beliefs? What you suggest is that we should lock up anyone who believes murder, rape, pedophilia, and drug dealing should be legal, but never get caught doing any of them.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    73. Re:censorship by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

      Unless you are going over the US border... In that case "inalienable right" hardly applies to US citizens let alone someone from another country. And no matter what you put in the US constitution... its not applicable to other Sovereign Nations unless they want it to be.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    74. Re:censorship by VirginMary · · Score: 1

      Freedom of expression is a good idea irrespective of the fact that the US and its WW2 allies are its main proponents. Saying that it isn't is an ad hominem.

      I completely agree with you regarding this point! :) Maybe I should have been clearer. I suspected the poster was US American and he attacked Germany for not having entirely unrestricted freedom of speech/expression. I merely pointed out that the US was instrumental in that restriction being implemented in Germany. My aside was meant to be ironic. What I probably should have said is: "Look, isn't it ironic that these, the US that is, proponents of freedom of expression, apparently do not think it should be granted to others outside of their country. Now don't get me wrong, I realise that Germany and what it had done during the 2nd World War, was not very popular and trusted at the time. Still, unless you think that Germans are somehow genetically unfit to deal with completely unrestricted freedom of speech, it is ironic that an American should attack Germany for this. But as Alan Cox, a famous Welsh Linux developer once said, irony is virtually unknown between the southern and northern borders of the USA. (I'm paraphrasing here.) And to be complete: since you accused me of an ad hominem attack, I would like to point out that I think it is hard to construe what you accused me of, based on what I actually said!

      --
      When 1person suffers from a delusion,it is called insanity.When many people suffer from a delusion,it is called religion
    75. Re:censorship by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      Everyone agrees that they have inalienable rights.

      Not everyone agrees that everyone else has an inalienable rights.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    76. Re:censorship by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      By quashing political dissent, you are becoming like the Nazis. Let the right wingers openly glorify the nazis, so reasonable moderate people can see just how awful they are. Here in the states we let the KKK march freely, and usually the protests over the march are bigger than the klan march itself. If you do not trust your populace to make the right choice when fully informed, how can you even pretend to be democratic?

      Here in germany we usually let the nazi groups make their marches freely. Usually the protest marches have bigger groups than the clans, so what is your point?
      We don't have any real democracies right now on the planet. Most western nations are republics and not democracies. The only democracy is probably Switzerland and even they are more a republic than a democracy.


      By singling out Nazis as forbidden by the government, you have codified them as a de facto opposition group to the state. Those who feel disenfranchised will look to the obvious enemy of your government for support. This strengthens the Nazis as opposed to simply ignoring them. Slashdotters will know this as the Streisand Effect.

      That is what we did, however I doubt that effect is that big ... never heared about this term but will check wikipedia.


      If you really want to prevent Nazis from gaining power again, don't outright ban them in your constitution.

      As far as I followed the USA news organizations like the Al Qaida are forbidden in the USA? People that want to visit the USA have a few questions answered when they pass the border: are you a member of an terrorist organization, did you ever been? Etc. ...

      Codify principles incompatible with Naziism in your constitution. Freedom of religion, Freedom of Expression, etc. As long as Freedom of Expression is not protected by your constitution, it can be taken away from you. When (not if) that happens, do you really care if it was the Nazis or some other group?

      All that is fixed in our constitution (the freedoms you mention I mean) ... but as I pointed out in another post, also the non displaying of nazi symbols is fixed in our constitution.

      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    77. Re:censorship by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1


      If that is true, why is Wolfenstein being recalled in Germany?

      First of all you could have read a few sentences more of the OP ... and second: the game was recalled by the publisher and not by an government agency, by a law institution, by a judge or by a prosecutor!!!

      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    78. Re:censorship by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Germany is sovereign since roughly 20 years now.

      It was not sovereign until the reunion between eastern and eastern germany (in fact I'm not sure that we are fully sovereign right now). During 1989 the so called 2 + 4 talks (2 governments of the two german states and 4 governments of the WW II allies) tried to formulate a peace treaty (YES THERE WAS NO PEACE TREATY AFTER WWII, germany was still occupied by allied forces until 1989. As far as I know allied forces still have special rights in germany about not being prosecuted by german law institutions etc. E.g. if an american soldier is speeding on a street and killing one, the german police is not allowed to arrest him, that was at least the case until 1989 and I have the impression it is still like that today)

      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    79. Re:censorship by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1


      In other words you want to restrict their freedom of political expression because you find their ideals abhorrent.

      No, we don't want that. We have a law in the constitution that demands it. That law is constructed by the allied occupying forces after WWII. To change the constitution you need a 2/3rd majority of the Bundestag (parliament) and 2/3rd majority of the Bundesrat (similar to the US Senate).
      As I pointed out in several posts: germany has no censorship. And I repeat it again: the slashdot crowed seems not to know what censorship actually is. What we have is free speech. Only one little stain our free speech laws have: they prohibit public performance of Nazi symbols.
      As you need the above noted majorities you can not expect any will or effort to change those laws in the foreseeable future as every one who might try change that would be seen in public as a nazi. And ... we have in fact far more important issues right now in germany and in the world.

      Who the fuck cares about Nazi symbols, wether they are allowed or not, when the oil is ending in 20 or 30 years, when the climate is changing rapidly, when pollution and gen food is spreading, when the world is collapsing ...

      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    80. Re:Censorship by petrus4 · · Score: 1

      Retards. Hiding the past doesn't make the it go away. It can only make it more appealing to the weak minded.

      The truly amusing irony is that the German government may well be one of the only governments on the planet, that truly is actively trying to erradicate fascism.

      Nearly all of the rest of them, however, can't seem to scramble to implement a fascist state quickly enough.

    81. Re:censorship by mjwx · · Score: 1

      but you seem to think that putting some nice sounding principles into a constitution guarantees citizens rights. We have a saying in Germany: "Paper is patient." This means that you can write whatever you like down on paper but it doesn't necessarily mean anything! Communist East Germany had a beautiful constitution granting its citizens all kinds of rights which they didn't actually have in practice! Also it seems to me that what your constitution means changes with the composition of your Supreme Court judges. Furthermore it is extremely easy to ignore or misinterpret constitutions and countries ideals as witnessed by the many US citizens that firmly believe that the US started out and was intended to be a Christian state.

      This is my issue with relying on a document for rights and why Australia does not need a Bill of Rights. Such a bill is entirely dependent on the government at the time to enforce it. If that government sees fit to ignore parts or all of the bill then it can do so. As we've seen recently in the United States, there was little protest against the unconstitutional warrantless wiretapping, imprisoning on Guantanamo Bay and of course the on going TSA goose-stepping in every US airport (Dear Americans, you don't know how easy and simple air travel is until you spend time outside your own nation). Australia has maintained it's implied freedoms (the five fundamental freedoms) better then the US has maintained it's explicit freedoms in the last decade all without a bill of rights.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    82. Re:censorship by mah! · · Score: 1

      considering that in /.'s own country even the human body is censored under criminal penalty, it seems to me that the local population needs to get their facts straight about censorship first...

    83. Re:censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last time I checked, being a pedophile was legal.

    84. Re:censorship by quadrox · · Score: 1

      Germany currently does NOT have a consitution. The "Grundgesetz" is not equivalent to the american consitution. The constitution in the US sets a limit to what laws can and cannot do, while the Grundgesetz can be overruled by ANY law. The Grundgesetz is more like a common base for all laws, a sort of default.

      As a german you may want to cry out and call me a liar, but I dare you to prove me wrong.

    85. Re:censorship by DarkDust · · Score: 1

      Maybe I miss something, but where exactly in my posting did I state that we have a constitution ?

      BTW, just looked it up, the law in question is StGB 86a "Verwenden von Kennzeichen verfassungswidriger Organisationen", which is where the term "verfassungsfeindliche Symbole" stems from which I translated with "anti-constitutional" symbols (using quotes exactly because we don't have a constitution).

    86. Re:censorship by xtracto · · Score: 1

      . In most of the United States, you can't even take a piss in public! How's that for freedom of expression?

      Not only that, but they get grossed out over a mammary gland.

      In Germany (at least in the channels I have in my TV here in Sachsen-Anhalt) it is normal to see nude people in open TV... while 5 frames of that freaks out people in the USA...

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    87. Re:censorship by Xest · · Score: 1

      This is a notable point. I have to wonder sometimes what the real noise and reason for censorship in Germany of Nazi related material is- is it really about stemming and preventing a nazi uprising again, or is it actually about refusing to acknowledge or accept defeat of the nazis or nazi sentiment?

      All too often these censorship laws seem to be used in support of the nazis- i.e. "this game is okay, as long as you aren't killing any Nazis in it".

      Who exactly calls attention to these problems in Germany? I'd suggest anyone complaining about a swastika symbol being left in a game about killing nazis should be the first person you question about their real intentions.

    88. Re:censorship by Tom · · Score: 1

      I don't know about you but I find the rationale for this type of censorship to be utterly absurd. So much for free speech.....

      Yeah, how could they ever make such a law?

      The allies, I mean. This law is not an invention of the german parliament. In fact, at the time it was created (right after the war), there was no german government. Germany was under allied occupation. Guess they thought those evil nazi germans couldn't handle free speech anyways. Funny how their children today think those evil nazi germans should try free speech for a change...

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    89. Re:censorship by Tom · · Score: 1

      If you really want to prevent Nazis from gaining power again, don't outright ban them in your constitution. Codify principles incompatible with Naziism in your constitution. Freedom of religion, Freedom of Expression, etc. As long as Freedom of Expression is not protected by your constitution, it can be taken away from you. When (not if) that happens, do you really care if it was the Nazis or some other group?

      Because, by definition, the american way is the only right way, isn't it? Other approaches to the issues of society are inferior, you don't even have to examine them, right?

      Freedom of Speech is a valued right all over Europe. However, its place in the value system is slightly different. Instead of the american approach where it's a supreme right, it is one amongst others. We europeans have this funny idea that there are some things that could be more important. We don't even value Freedom itself as the #1 superior-to-everything value. We took the damage from the two world wars. We've become a peace-loving bunch and we're ready to restrict a few freedoms if it means preventing WW3. Funny thought, eh? Taking away the Freedom to Kill, the Freedom to Genocide and the Freedom to Oppress Everyone Else.

      We value Freedom of Speech, but we understand that a society is not built on Freedom of Speech alone.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    90. Re:censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which raises the following question: Are the Indiana Jones movies banned in germany as well?

    91. Re:censorship by Zebedeu · · Score: 1

      In most of the United States, you can't even take a piss in public! How's that for freedom of expression?

      Actually, you can't piss in public in Germany either.

      Thankfully :-)

    92. Re:Censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you mean the german government is trying to eradicate a ITALIAN political system the fascism, and not the german natioanal socialism?
      Or are you really so moron that you do not know the difference between the germans and italians, and their political systems during the first half of the previous century?

    93. Re:censorship by xkcdFan1011011101111 · · Score: 1

      mod parent up

    94. Re:censorship by quadrox · · Score: 1

      "It was then taken over into our "Grundgesetz" (think constitution)"

      I never claimed you said we have a constitution, but the above quote is highly misleading at best.

    95. Re:censorship by darkshadow88 · · Score: 1

      Actually, Germany does have a censorship agency: Bundesprüfstelle für jugendgefährdende Medien

    96. Re:censorship by metrix007 · · Score: 1

      [i]Freedom of Expression is guaranteed by the German Constitution.[/i]

      Rubbish. Germany has Freedom of Expression like Iran has Freedom of Press. I know, I live in the damn place.

      Honestly, it'S a joke, the grandparent is right, and the goverment needs to take a step back and stop babysitting the citizens. Except, that the Germans love it. We love to criticise over goverments that limit freedom of speech, but in germany, where the people want and accept it, it is quite a strange case, and not much can be said.

      [i]Jeez, people, everytime anything related to this law comes up, everyone starts crying censorship. There is one small bloody set of symbols that's forbidden. One stupid verse of a song, and one stupid greeting.[/]

      And with this, you completely miss the point. It is censorship, and it is completely retarded and unjustifed. While once it may not have been, there is no longer any excuse for it.

      --
      If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
    97. Re:censorship by Nathrael · · Score: 1

      You don't even need to hop over to countries like Iran for that - Austria's already all you need. We once had a politician calling Mohammed a child molester; not necessarily a position I feel inclined to agree with, but it got her sued like hell. At the same time, you can (verbally) accuse people like the former US president of the same thing and probably even get applause. Not that I support either the political stances of Bush nor Winter (the name of the Austrian politician that got sued), but this is a great example of how censorship is used to silence members of political parties becoming inconvenient to the ruling ones...

      --
      A good education is a bit like a STD - it makes you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and gives you a desire to spread it.
    98. Re:censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just as people disaggreed on what the constitution means today, they disaggreed in the 1700's too. John Jay, Thomas Paine and other founding fathers intended for the US to be a christian state, others didn't.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Jay#Religion

  4. Bad news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This game was already a huge flop. I don't think they really needed this, LOL.

  5. Trotskydoom by Baldrson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So just release a modified version of Wolfenstein that focuses on commies rather than nazis called "Trotskydoom" wherein the objective is to blow away all of the Bolsheviks that are confiscating food from the farmers to impose the famine of 1921 on rural Russians. I mean, come on, there isn't anywhere in the world the hammer and sickle are outlawed and the commies killed far more than the nazis did so it should be even more fun than Wolfenstein!

    1. Re:Trotskydoom by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The nazis are loved by nobody. The commies, especially Trotsky, are still worshipped and respected in some parts of the world. And not only ignorant parts, either - highly educated people believe in it! That makes it pretty much a no-go as far as video game villains go. You need someone who nobody sympathizes with, like aliens or nazis or corporations.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    2. Re:Trotskydoom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, I'm the CEO of a Nazi corporation on Mars, you insensitive clod!

    3. Re:Trotskydoom by gnick · · Score: 1

      Trotsky got big enough to be revered and loved (and immortalized as Snowball in Animal Farm), but never big enough to foul things up and be hated like Lenin. He even had the good sense to get assassinated while still popular and published.

      What boggles me is that Mao isn't universally hated... Or why Lenin's body hasn't been vandalized...

      I'm with you - If I make a video game, I'm shooting evil aliens. I think I'll call it District 9. ;-)

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    4. Re:Trotskydoom by icebraining · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not true:

      Freedom Fighters, originally titled Freedom: The Battle For Liberty Island, is a 2003 third-person shooter video game available for the Playstation 2, Nintendo GameCube, Xbox and Microsoft Windows that is set in an alternate history. The player takes the role of Christopher Stone, a plumber-turned American Resistance movement leader who fights against the Red Army that invades and occupies New York City.

    5. Re:Trotskydoom by Clandestine_Blaze · · Score: 1

      I mean, come on, there isn't anywhere in the world the hammer and sickle are outlawed and the commies killed far more than the nazis did so it should be even more fun than Wolfenstein!

      Except The Republic of Hungary, Latvia, and Lithuania. Well, the exception is that it can be used for educational and artistic reasons, and I'm sure they can get away with it for artistic reasons in this case. :-)

    6. Re:Trotskydoom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe in Lithuania both nazi and commie symbols are banned.

    7. Re:Trotskydoom by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Lenin actually wanted Trotsky to succeed him. It was Stalin that Lenin distrusted and wanted kept from the top spot, but after Lenin's stroke, Stalin was the one with the charisma and sheer will to rule who managed to get his hands on the Bolshevik machine. It helped that Stalin managed to get his hands on Lenin's will and make sure no one saw what Lenin really thought of him.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    8. Re:Trotskydoom by bcmm · · Score: 1

      I thought Mao was pretty much universally hated, outside of China, even by very left-wing people. Inside China, negative information about him is carefully controlled.

      Part of the reason he isn't hated as much as he might be is that the majority of the deaths he caused where due to incompetence rather than intentional mass-murder.

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    9. Re:Trotskydoom by Baldrson · · Score: 1

      I know folks from Hungary, Latvia and Lithuania -- all three -- who escaped the commies and my impression is that the governments of those countries would not only make an exception in the case of Trotskydoom, but may well invest in its production.

    10. Re:Trotskydoom by gnick · · Score: 1

      Stalin/Lenin, Lenin/Stalin. A bunch of folks half-way around the world that can't even be bothered to learn my language - What do you want from me? =)

      Would have been a massively different country had Trotsky not been run out. Hugely different politics than either of those dudes. Not to say that the USSR would have turned into some Utopian commune, but I'll bet there would have been far fewer pointless deaths.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    11. Re:Trotskydoom by arethuza · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yet there is a chain on cafe bars in the UK called "Cafe Mao" and yes, it does appear to be *that* Mao. I've always thought that was a bit odd - a "Bar Stalin" would be unlikely and a "Bar Hitler" would be impossible but Mao was responsible for more deaths than the other two.

    12. Re:Trotskydoom by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Fooking prawns!

    13. Re:Trotskydoom by gnick · · Score: 1

      In my grad-school office, there were posters of the guy accompanied by "his" poetry. They were put up by native Chinese studying abroad, but they loved the dude. And if you exclude the population of China, I'd submit that you've negated the use of the word "universally".

      Agreed, though. At least the people that Mao starved were due to dumb-assery rather than malice. But frankly, I'm not convinced that the Nazis were entirely mal-intentioned either. Just homocidelly misguided. Patriotic intentions combined with actions that should have them lined up and shot. And regardless of your intentions, putting somebody in a cyanide shower and torching the corpse plays less well with the public than sending somebody off to a field to starve and saying "Oops" regardless of the head-count.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    14. Re:Trotskydoom by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 1

      What boggles me is that Mao isn't universally hated... Or why Lenin's body hasn't been

      For the same reason Andrew Jackson and others aren't reviled for the Trail Of Tears and other crimes against humanity. It was a long time ago and we put their actions in a historical context, they did a lot of good too and they were better than what went before.

      --
      If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
    15. Re:Trotskydoom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we put their actions in a historical context, they did a lot of good too and they were better than what went before.

      Wait... You're saying that Mao and Lenin were steps FORWARD??? Let me guess, you're wearing red briefs right now, aren't you?

    16. Re:Trotskydoom by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      Lawyers would work in a pinch, as well.

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    17. Re:Trotskydoom by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2, Interesting
      It's only among leftwing Westerners that Mao-worship still exists. The city council of Berkeley, California openly describe themselves as Maoist. Otherwise, the only regions of the world where Maoism is still a going concern are horrid backwaters like Nepal or Jharkhand. Chinese people say Mao was 70% right (kicking out the Nationalists and warlords) and 30% wrong (Great Leap Forward, Cultural Revolution, Hundred Flowers Movement, etc. etc.) Nobody in China recites his poetry or wears T-shirts with his picture on it. 100% of the Mao items for sale in shops are in tourist areas...nobody would buy that crap here.

      The reason he's not hated is that he unified China after a period of fragmentation. This happens a lot in Chinese history, and the conqueror is always a hero no matter how many puppies he kicks.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    18. Re:Trotskydoom by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      That's the impossible what-if, and it has been asked before. Lenin certainly was no saint, and was responsible for some pretty nasty acts particularly during the Civil War, and Trotsky certainly was in the thick of a lot of those decisions as one of the key Bolshevik revolutionary leaders. The Bolsheviks were not a nice bunch of guys, to be sure, and I doubt very much that the USSR would have been a freer state if Lenin's wishes had been honored.

      Still, from what I've read of Trotsky, it's really hard to see how he would have been the monster that Stalin was. On the flipside, I think the USSR needed a Stalin to survive, much as Rome needed an Octavian. I think under Trotsky the whole thing would have fell apart, or more likely, another Stalin-like figure would have had to have come out of the woodwork. Unless Trotsky was as willing to use brutality, and have Stalin murdered, I think even if Trotsky had managed to take control, Stalin would probably have overthrown him anyways.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    19. Re:Trotskydoom by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Look, Mr. Score: 3, Informative, I didn't literally mean that there has not been a single game since the beginning of time where commies were the villian. But thanks for backhandedly illustrating my point by dredging up some obscure title nobody has ever heard of. This review even remarks about how unusual commies as villians are.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    20. Re:Trotskydoom by insertwackynamehere · · Score: 0, Troll

      I mentioned Mao in front of this already maladjusted Korean girl I knew and she shouted "CHAIRMAN MAO" doing the little ^_^ with the peace sign fingers that dumbass people think is cute when azns do it but is actually the most fucking annoying thing on the planet probably to see in real life.

    21. Re:Trotskydoom by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the game is notorious for publisher meddling, originally it was supposed to play in some eastern European country that's being integrated into the USSR and the player being a revolutionary against them but the publisher thought Americans can't relate with that so it was set in the US instead.

      Generally communists as bad guys are pretty common in videogames and Tom Clancy books.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    22. Re:Trotskydoom by poliscipirate · · Score: 1

      I mean, come on, there isn't anywhere in the world the hammer and sickle are outlawed

      Fun fact: Hungary outlaws the display of all "totalitarian symbols", including the hammer and sickle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika#Post-WWII_stigmatization_in_Western_countries

    23. Re:Trotskydoom by poliscipirate · · Score: 1

      Scratch that... criminal misdemeanor, but still interesting.

    24. Re:Trotskydoom by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "You need someone who nobody sympathizes with, like aliens or nazis or corporations."

      I for one would welcome our alien Nazi corporate overlords!

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    25. Re:Trotskydoom by lymond01 · · Score: 1

      You need someone who nobody sympathizes with, like aliens or nazis or corporations.

      Don't we fight against corporate expansion every day? I might not get to use laser-guided grenades or call in airstrikes (or...bless us...fire the BFG9000). I just think video games are a sort of escapism. I don't think, though I can't be certain, that a game where writing your congressperson and having your avatar jump up and down at virtual rallies to increase your morale bar would appeal to a lot of people. Maybe the jumping part.

    26. Re:Trotskydoom by mrmeval · · Score: 1

      Actually you could just use the German green party and all their symbols. It's so appropriate.

      --
      I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
    27. Re:Trotskydoom by layer3switch · · Score: 1

      The nazis are loved by nobody.

      Mr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, you sir are nobody!

      --
      "Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
    28. Re:Trotskydoom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about a game where the Viet-cong hunts down the Americans? Boy wouldn't it be great to have the US as the villains for a change?

    29. Re:Trotskydoom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Command and Conquer: Red Alert? Red Alert 2? Red Alert 3?

    30. Re:Trotskydoom by Tom · · Score: 1

      That makes it pretty much a no-go as far as video game villains go. You need someone who nobody sympathizes with, like aliens or nazis or corporations.

      Lawyers?

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    31. Re:Trotskydoom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need someone who nobody sympathizes with, like aliens or nazis or corporations.

      I like corporations. I like them so much, I intend on making one to make video games about ... Oh, never mind.

  6. Am I the Only One by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    who notices the absurdity of this?

    The pics shown in the examples are a veritable gorefest and that is OK, but the invisible-to-my-eye Swastikas are not?

    Krazy Krauts!

    1. Re:Am I the Only One by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      but the invisible-to-my-eye Swastikas are not?

      Don't you know that human beings are so impressionable that all they need is to see a small swastika and they will instantly volunteer to help load the boxcars? Clearly we need a benevolent government to protect us from such evil.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    2. Re:Am I the Only One by elFisico · · Score: 1

      Please note that it was not the german law-enforcement who ordered the recall, Activision did that on their own.

    3. Re:Am I the Only One by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 1

      Please note that it was not the german law-enforcement who ordered the recall, Activision did that on their own.

      But would Activision have done it if not for fear of reprisal from the government, if it was merely a social taboo rather than a legal one?

    4. Re:Am I the Only One by elFisico · · Score: 1

      But would Activision have done it if not for fear of reprisal from the government, if it was merely a social taboo rather than a legal one?

      of course not. but thats not the point. activision engaged in self-censorship to avoid the risk. they coudld have chosen to fight for the artistic freedom to use the symbols (and imho would have had a significant chance to succeed). "inglorious basterds" was not censored due to its historic relevance.

      but the game remains playable without the nazi symbols and without the splatter and gore. anybody who insists that these elements are essential for his enjoyment of the game should get therapy...

    5. Re:Am I the Only One by Tom · · Score: 1

      What nonsense. If the government were afraid of that, they'd put much harsher penalties on displaying nazi symbols, don't you think?

      Not that I give them much credit, after all they do use that same argument to justify their Internet censorship laws (and I'm not joking nor exaggerating. At least one of the responsible politicians is on record for claiming that seeing child pornography could turn you into a pedophile.)

      But one has to use the proper criticism, and this isn't it. The law is in place to make sure nazi symbolism is and stays "dishonoured" and keeping it on the record that we don't want to see the stuff again. Not even in a game where you're shooting at it.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  7. so long ago by Lord+Ender · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's been over 60 years, Germany. You don't have to worry about symbolism bringing back the Nazi party; most of them are dead. Your reasons for denying the existence of history are over now. It's time to give free speech a try.

    --
    A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    1. Re:so long ago by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Informative

      Your reasons for denying the existence of history are over now.

      German denial of history has nothing on the Japanese. Bataan death march, what? Rape of Nanking, what? Death railway, what? Those weren't in my history books......

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    2. Re:so long ago by liegeofmelkor · · Score: 1

      ... most of them are dead.

      You've never been to Bavaria, have you?

    3. Re:so long ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      It is a criminal offence in Germany to say that less than 6 million people died in the Holocaust but it is perfectly fine to deny the Nazi's existed.

    4. Re:so long ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think people get over it very well. Try making a game that involves you controlling a rebelling black slave killing white plantation owners and sell it in the south. I bet it would get censored.

    5. Re:so long ago by KitsuneSoftware · · Score: 1

      Would that the Nazis were all dead. Last year, I boarded the wrong train while on holiday in Germany, and ended up in a small town called "Bad Kissingen" where I found a swastika graffiti'd across part of the train station wall.

    6. Re:so long ago by DarkDust · · Score: 1

      ... most of them are dead.

      You've never been to Bavaria, have you?

      I guess in Saxony they have bigger problems with those people.

    7. Re:so long ago by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 3, Interesting
      I agree that denying access to free speech is not the answer. There is enough collective German guilt still around to keep neo-Nazis in check for quite a while.

      It's been over 60 years, Germany. You don't have to worry about symbolism bringing back the Nazi party; most of them are dead.

      That's not quite true, though. Yes, most original Nazis are dead, but with their death also comes a greater tendency to forget the dangerous tendencies that got things started.

      For example, the NPD (National Democratic Party) has had representatives in the national government for years now (and it receives 5-10% of the vote in some regions). They are widely portrayed as being associated with Nazi ideals, and though I think the media is a little overboard about such things, I start to wonder when their official party statements are concerned about "alliances of Jews and Negroes" threatening to take over the world (from the Wikipedia article):

      In November 2008, shortly after the 2008 United States Presidential Election, the NPD published a document entitled "Africa conquers the White House" which stated that the election of Barack Obama as the first African-American President of the United States was the result of "the American alliance of Jews and Negroes" and that Obama aimed to destroy the United States' "white identity." The NPD claimed that "A non-white America is a declaration of war on all people who believe an organically grown social order based on language and culture, history and heritage to be the essence of humanity" and that "Barack Obama hides this declaration of war behind his pushy sunshine smile." The NPD also stated that the extensive support for Obama in Germany "resembles an African tropical disease."

      Do I think this is a reason to suppress speech? No. But I do think Nazi symbols could exacerbate some of the right-wing, who does seem to adhere to tenets similar to the rhetoric of the early Nazi Party.

    8. Re:so long ago by ThePhilips · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Bavaria was btw one of the least nazist lands probably. They are simply over-conservative so even smallest strain of nazism is going to remain there for quite some time. (Hint: nazism came to power and spread from poor German lands while Bavaria was (and is) one of the richest.)

      Frankly the ban on svastika is absurd, considering that neo-nazis are pretty harmless bunch and it is anti-nazis whom I actually afraid of more.

      In northern poor lands of Germany (where from browns have originated) though spirit of racism is still kicking. Names or symbols do not matter IMO. But Germany instead of solving the racism problem concentrates too much on apologetic measures like this ban.

      --
      All hope abandon ye who enter here.
    9. Re:so long ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would play the fuck out of that game

    10. Re:so long ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One could say the same thing to the African American population in America. I know, completely different topic, but same sort of time frame idea. I'm FAIRLY sure that all the African Americans that were enslaved in the south are long gone by now. Let it go.

    11. Re:so long ago by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      A slave rebellion FPS? That's an awesome idea. I would totally buy that game.

      In the US it would not and could not get censored. Our constitution protects those rights. It's quite possible that some stores would refuse to sell it, but I bet such a game would be a big hit, north and south.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    12. Re:so long ago by ioshhdflwuegfh · · Score: 1

      Uh, Lord Ender sends a message to Germans that something is over...

    13. Re:so long ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhm...I have a Japanese high-school history text (a friend of mine kept his when he graduated), and these events ARE actually mentioned. They may often be downplayed and described with platitudes, but they are in fact openly taught. There is a small furor every time a publisher tries to produce a text that downplays them too much, in fact.
      If you want a place where high-school history of their own nation is a complete and utter whitewash, look to the United States of America. It's not half as bad as China (Holy Handgrenades, 1984 anyone?), but by first-world standards it's abysmal.

    14. Re:so long ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go back to reading your textbooks again. Before rising to power Hitler was living in Bavaria, more specifically in in Munich. The NSDAP was founded (or better: merged from several right wing parties) in the HofbrÃuhaus in Munich. Most support for the party originated in Bavaria. Please check your facts before posting such nonsense.

    15. Re:so long ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      You are completely full of shit.

      Bavaria was btw one of the least nazist lands probably.

      Bavaria was the god damned land where the Nazi pary was founded, where they tried a grab for power in 1923. After an paramilitary assault on the freaking city hall, the courts of this "least nazist" lands allowed Hitler to extensively present his worldviews, and provided him with a public forum for his delusions. Afterwards, they sentenced him to 5 years and released him after nine months. They refused to sentence him for treason, because:âzsomeone who thinks and feels as German as Hitlerâoe and who is of âzpure patriotic spirit and of the most noble willâoe would be unable to commit treason.

      Remember that we are talking 1923 here!

      For the actual third Reich period, I'll just note that the Nazis themselves called Munich "the capital of the nazist movement".

    16. Re:so long ago by insertwackynamehere · · Score: 1, Funny

      See, in glorious Nippon the land of anime and manga and technological development, no one can do any wrong. Japan is like the US but smarter, cleaner, better, cooler and has animation that knocks the socks off of American animation. Ignore the recycled footage loops and the abstract backgrounds in fighting sequences, it really is so much better! Also they have such a better sense of design than us. And pocky! And Naruto! And really cute NON-AMERICAN (BAH AMERICA LOL) plush toys and children's characters ^-^ So I guess what I'm saying is, who cares if their country raped thousands and treated their surrounding countries like shit finally ending in World War II? Who cares lol ^o^ They have such awesome cute edgy things and the otaku in all of us can agree that Japan should be 100% forgiven as long as Asian American grocery stores keep selling all those candies I really like so that me and my obese catear wearing friends can forever be satiated with sugar, 3 or 4 choice japanese phrases and smugness about our ability to dress up like idiots in public ^_^ ALL HAIL GLORIOUS NIPPON ^_^_^_^^_^_^_^

    17. Re:so long ago by Spazztastic · · Score: 1

      Would that the Nazis were all dead. Last year, I boarded the wrong train while on holiday in Germany, and ended up in a small town called "Bad Kissingen" where I found a swastika graffiti'd across part of the train station wall.

      The person who wielded the can of spray paint is no more a Nazi then the kids in my High School my sophomore year who spray painted the tennis courts with a swastika and the words "One world, one race."

      --
      Posts not to be taken literally. Almost everything is sarcasm.
    18. Re:so long ago by Rocketship+Underpant · · Score: 1

      There's a major difference between Germany and Japan, and how they regard their past.

      Germany, like many other European cultures, is reactionary. They live in a constant state of of guilt for actions no one now alive has committed. They make irrational laws that do nothing to relieve this guilt while subverting the very values they claim to believe in. They censor the present to deny the past, and so they remain stuck in the past.

      Japan simply moves on. Yes, the past is embarrassing so it doesn't always make it into the textbooks â" just like every other country. But Japan doesn't live in constant guilt. They don't censor the past or otherwise engage in futile oppression in pursuit of elusive cosmic forgiveness. Japan is rooted in the present and focused on the future.

      --
      He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
    19. Re:so long ago by Darth · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They are definitely not denying the existence of history. When I was in Germany, everyone there was very aware of their history. I agree that suppression of symbols isn't helping, but they aren't doing it in an attempt to deny the Nazis existed.

      --
      Darth --
      Nil Mortifi, Sine Lucre
    20. Re:so long ago by Idarubicin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's time to give free speech a try.

      You go first.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    21. Re:so long ago by elFisico · · Score: 1

      Please explain what part of free speech is hindered by outlawing those symbols in a non-historic context? Please also explain how outlawing extreme graphic violence is hindering free speech.

    22. Re:so long ago by sorak · · Score: 1

      It's not about denying history. The law is about not glorifying their mistakes. I live near a southern tourist town, and there are so many knife shops, that typically have one of five symbols: A wolf, an indian, a US flag, a swastika, or a confederate flag. People love to pretend like it is a love of history that makes them buy the confederate flags (as for the swastikas, those guys don't pretend to love anything).

      But history does not mean loving everything your country has ever done. I'm glad they don't hang Swastikas on their buildings and hold Holocaust reenactments, (they way we do with the civil war). Maybe they have the right idea by saying "we did this, it was a mistake, and we do not want to repeat it".

    23. Re:so long ago by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      I take it that you are merely ignorant and not trying to actively insult all Germans. Denying the Holocaust is a pretty serious crime over here. Besides, free speech is guaranteed by out constitution, with the exception of... denying the Holocaust, which is a special form of libel. Okay, and the swastika and the Hitler Greeting. That's it.

      Meanwhile, to respond in your tone, I still don't see the United States recognizing the right to dignity. It's time to give human rights a try.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    24. Re:so long ago by G00F · · Score: 1

      I'm not finding references to Holy Hand grenades that fit with your statement, could ya include links and such please?

      --
      The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive
    25. Re:so long ago by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      You sound like you may be suffering from Nationalism. Symptoms include: defending bad government, insulting critics of your government, and arguing by way of logical fallacy.

      But now, there's a cure! Ask your doctor about Cynicism.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    26. Re:so long ago by mjwx · · Score: 1

      German denial of history has nothing on the Japanese. Bataan death march, what? Rape of Nanking, what? Death railway, what? Those weren't in my history books......

      That pretty much goes for all of Asia. A lot of nationalism and revisionist history there.

      The Germans aren't denying their history either, records and museums of the Nazi atrocities are maintained, the history of WWII is taught. It's the glorification of Nazism that is banned (sometimes a little over zealously). The only place in Asia I've seen something similar is in Cambodia where the Killing Fields and S21 (Tuol Sleng) prison is maintained as a museum. I'm pretty certain that Germany knows about wikipedia page on Nazi's and had done nothing.

      As I said in a previous post, this is part of a German political parties crusade against video games rather then any issue with the Anti Nazi law.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    27. Re:so long ago by Lunzo · · Score: 1

      AC is correct, the GP post is wrong. This is why slashdot needs a -1 Factually Wrong moderation.

    28. Re:so long ago by Zoxed · · Score: 1

      > German denial of history has nothing on the Japanese.

      On the other hand, as a British person having lived in Germany for the last 12 years, I would say Germany has faced the dark parts of it's past a lot better than the UK has it's.

    29. Re:so long ago by Tom · · Score: 1

      Your reasons for denying the existence of history are over now.

      I take it you've never actually been to Germany and most importantly not to a german school.

      Let me tell you that as kids, we got that part of history absolutely hammered into our heads, stuff down our throats, until it came out our ears. That denial you accuse us of is the worst fear of everyone in education, history, politics. As a matter of fact, I personally think they're overdoing it to the point of making kids sympathize with the Nazi ideology due to polarity response effects.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    30. Re:so long ago by Some+Bitch · · Score: 1

      They censor the present to deny the past

      You managed to get this completely and utterly backwards. In Germany they have a saying, "Nie Weider", meaning "Never again". It's written in several languages on a monument at Dachau concentration camp and almost ingrained in the national consciousness. In Germany denying the holocaust happened is even illegal so to say they deny the past is ridiculous. Germany has not forgotten and they don't want to for fear it could happen again.

    31. Re:so long ago by Nalgas+D.+Lemur · · Score: 1

      If you want a place where high-school history of their own nation is a complete and utter whitewash, look to the United States of America.

      Yeah, we certainly have our share of that. A history grad student friend's pet peeve was how minimal to nonexistent the teaching of stuff like the Trail of Tears tends to be in the US.

    32. Re:so long ago by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      I don't quite defend our government; it's as much a bunch of morons as any. I also didn't criticize your nonexistant criticism of our government, I criticized your assumption that all Germans pretend that WW2 never happened (which is not only a serious crime over here but also grounds for a justified beating). I do defend our censorship laws in that they are sharply defined and in place for a very specific reason; there is no way of expanding the censorship that isn't immediately obvious (and will be widely reported and discussed). The grunds for those laws are simply that when Germany was built, the occupying nations ensured that our values are based on the human right to dignity first and the human right to free expression second (unlike in the States, where free expression comes first).

      I don't say it's perfect but no system is perfect. Ours did what it was designed to do and it has formed us. Asking us to throw away the central value our society was built upon just because you do it differently is exactly the same as when I tell you that America needs to place human dignity over absolute freedom of speech because we do (ignoring that this is partially the case, cf. libel laws).


      As for nationalism: Apart from me not being a Nazi (and yes, most Germans don't see much of a difference between nationalism and fascism) I'm contemplating moving to Sweden because of the saner privacy and internet laws over there. Germany ain't terribly bad but there is much room for improvement.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    33. Re:so long ago by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      You are defending a stupid, senseless, unjust, unliberalized law. Banning all films, games, novels, drawings, etc. which are set in Nazi Germany does not protect dignity. Censoring "hate" speech or speech intended to incite violence may be an acceptable trade off for "dignity" (whatever that means), but that is NOT what is happening here. Your government is denying your right to any novel, game, or film set at that point in history, regardless of whether it is intended to promote the Nazi party or incite violence. This law very much serves aid in the denial of history, as it makes much discussion of history illegal.

      That takes away your own dignity. Your government would dignify you by protecting your rights, not taking them away.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    34. Re:so long ago by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Banning all films, games, novels, drawings, etc. which are set in Nazi Germany does not protect dignity.

      Good thing we aren't doing it. I can go to the video rental shop and rent Raiders of the Lost Ark, Call of Duty etc. to my heart's content. Or I just watch the TV show Switch where one recurring sketch turns the Third Reich into an office comedy/reality show. Also, there's a number of completely legal German movies, documentations etc. about the Third Reich, complete with swastikas.

      Turns out it's actually pretty hard to run afoul of the censorship law nowadays. Unless you're a video game, but that's just because our government has a rather strong aversion against violent video games (other violent media are A-okay, though).

      Essentially, if you show the swastikas etc. in some kind of historical context nobody's going to complain. Thus, CoD and Indiana Jones are legal. However, the bar for what's considered a historical context is set much higher for video games than for movies. Hellboy might just get away with showing swastikas while Wolfenstein might not. However, it actually might be okay - remember that Activision is calling back the game, not the German government; Activision just doesn't want to risk anything.

      This law very much serves aid in the denial of history, as it makes much discussion of history illegal. No, it doesn't. Also, considering that history is a mandatory part of any German school curriculum and German history class consists to about 50% of the Third Reich and why we shouldn't repeat it, discussion of history is not illegal but mandatory. I'd also expect that a documentary about the Reich (complete with swastikas) would be just as legal as one about the Namib Desert, as long as it doesn't glorify the Nazis.


      In short: Please don't try to lecture people about things you know nothing about.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    35. Re:so long ago by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      It sounds to me like you agree that this law is being used to unjustly deny Germans their rights, especially when it comes to video games.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    36. Re:so long ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The trail of tears gets taught in every grade from third to seventh.

    37. Re:so long ago by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      No, not really. They are being overly harsh on video games but that's only an artifact of them being overly harsh on video games in every way.

      In fact, the only game I know of, besides Wolfenstein 3D, that has been seized for being too Nazi-like is called "KZ Manager", which should say everything that needs to be said about the game. It's more common to see games get shot down for excessive violence (Mortal Kombat 2, Manhunt, Dead Rising).
      By the way, "seized" means "can't be sold, advertised for or distributed"; possession and use are legal. Yes, I know that banning games like Dead Rising is... fairly eccentric. Usually such games merely end up on the "index" - they get an age rating of 18+ and simply can't be advertised for or sold to minors.

      Sorry if this offends you, but I don't agree that a nation that doesn't put absolutely free speech above everything else is morally degenerate. Especially not when free speech is one of its core values.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    38. Re:so long ago by makomk · · Score: 1

      Japan simply moves on. Yes, the past is embarrassing so it doesn't always make it into the textbooks â" just like every other country. But Japan doesn't live in constant guilt. They don't censor the past or otherwise engage in futile oppression in pursuit of elusive cosmic forgiveness. Japan is rooted in the present and focused on the future.

      Hahahahahahah... bullshit. Total and utter bullshit. There's a strong strand of historical revisionism and denial alive and well in Japan today; for example, not only has the Government still not admitted the Nanjing massacre happened, but there are unchallenged attempts by right-wing nationalists to censor mention of it. This appears to be typical. (Understandable, since right-wing nationalism over there is heavily linked to organized crime.)

      Also, recall the Government-approved textbook that caused controversy for downplaying Japanese war crimes? That was entirely intentional on the part of its authors, and far from the only historical revisionism in it (for example, that description of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere is written to downplay Japanese aggression and colonialism). Meanwhile, the Japanese government has a history of denying approval to textbooks that describe war crimes too honestly.

  8. Once again... by celibate+for+life · · Score: 1

    ...the fact that it went through censorship makes the game even more noteworthy. I may give it a try, the uncensored version of course, looks delightfully gory.

  9. Deja Vu by MakinBacon · · Score: 1

    Didn't this happen to the first Wolfenstein also?

    1. Re:Deja Vu by yogibaer · · Score: 1

      Yep, both previous versions went on the "Index" -which basically allows personal posession, but not distribution in Germany. A court ordered all copies of Wolfenstein 3D in Germany to be confiscated in 1994 (german wikipedia: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfenstein_3D). Confiscation hit the PC and the later ATARI Jaguar Version as well. (Which, of course, made it one of the hottest game of the season) The Prequel "Spear of Destiny" got a "R" equivalent rating, but was not forbidden. Castle Wolfenstein (1981) was one of the first computer games on the "Index" and distribution was also forbidden in Germany. (German Wikipedia: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Wolfenstein. Again: personal posession, was not, hottest game of the season and a star of the early disk swapping networks around the Apple II. Aah, those good old Crackin' Days )

    2. Re:Deja Vu by yogibaer · · Score: 1

      There is also a Website about the procedure called "Gesetzlicher Jugnedmedienschutz" (Which very oughly translates in to "legal protection of minors from Media". The "Bundespruefstelle" (again very roughly translated: Federal Monitoring Authority) publishes the various lists with media which are deemed as containing youth endangering and/or criminal content. http://www.bundespruefstelle.de/bmfsfj/generator/bpjm/jugendmedienschutz.html (german only)

    3. Re:Deja Vu by The+Ultimate+Fartkno · · Score: 2, Informative

      This has happened to pretty much every iteration of Wolfenstein *ever*. Almost every WWII game made has run afoul of various German laws in some form or another. Between their banhammer laws on anything remotely resembling Nazi iconography and the way they ratchet up the prohibition of pixelated violence every time they have an American-style school shooting, it's really a wonder that you can buy a single game over there that's any more graphic than cartoon bears throwing marshmallows at each other and then apologizing afterwards.

    4. Re:Deja Vu by dissy · · Score: 1

      it's really a wonder that you can buy a single game over there that's any more graphic than cartoon bears throwing marshmallows at each other and then apologizing afterwards.

      Ooooh, that must be the new Canadian Wolfenstein version!

      * Sorry in advance to our northerly neighbors! I really do <3 you *

  10. Geez by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 1

    I wonder what actually happens to a German person if they ever catch a glimpse of a swastika. I assume it's something terrible, if their government goes to such great lengths to protect them from setting eyes on the symbol, even in fictional game. Does it flip some sort of switch that makes them slobbering monsters? I wonder... Somebody should try flashing swastikas at Germans and recording their horrendous transformations for science.

    1. Re:Geez by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Does it flip some sort of switch that makes them slobbering monsters?

      This might explain my ex-girlfriend from Bavaria. She must have played a game of Wolfenstein right before we met. Damn you ID!

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    2. Re:Geez by Fross · · Score: 1

      Well, last time they did, some pertty terrible things happened. Still, not sure correllation = causation... ;)

    3. Re:Geez by sexconker · · Score: 1

      It's like in Indiana Jones when they looked upon the Ark.

      Oh wait, that movie had Nazis?

      DON'T LOOK! The shitty 1970s special effects will annihilate you!

    4. Re:Geez by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      Back in 1995 we had a German exchange student going to our little podunk highschool.  Nice kid.  One day as he was walking back to class from the restroom or library or some such, he saw a Nazi flag hanging in a history teachers classroom (they were learning about WW2 that particular week).  He flipped the fuck out, busted into the classroom, snatched the flag down & proceeded to stomp the hell out of it, screaming at the teacher the whole time.  It took a good 15 minutes to calm him down.

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    5. Re:Geez by ioshhdflwuegfh · · Score: 1

      Does it flip some sort of switch that makes them slobbering monsters?

      This might explain my ex-girlfriend from Bavaria. She must have played a game of Wolfenstein right before we met. Damn you ID!

      Now we're finally getting somewhere.

    6. Re:Geez by jd2112 · · Score: 1

      I wonder what actually happens to a German person if they ever catch a glimpse of a swastika. I assume it's something terrible, if their government goes to such great lengths to protect them from setting eyes on the symbol, even in fictional game

      Possibly the same effect as nipples on American TV viewers?

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    7. Re:Geez by elFisico · · Score: 1

      Please note that it's not Germany who is censoring. Activision is.

    8. Re:Geez by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      They probably think: "Man, I love Indiana Jones movies." Use of swastikas is allowed in many contexts. Video games are just treated more strictly, as usual.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
  11. Socially progressive... by MindlessAutomata · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Stuff like this is one reason out of many I'm very wary of social progressives. Germany is a socially progressive state, and I don't think it's at all a coincidence that such censorship exists. Of course the social progressives are going to come out of the woodwork to justify it by scaring people up about the possibility of Nazis arising again and so on and so forth, but I guess sacrificing freedom in order to protect it is just a necessity to them. Individual freedom is on the down-and-out world-wide in the name of social consensus and thus niche groups (including nerds and gamers) suffer the most.

    1. Re:Socially progressive... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize that this was originally imposed upon Germany by the Allies at the end of World War II, right? It has since stuck even though the threat of a Nazi resurgence has now passed because it has become a part of the political status quo. It's not really specifically a left-wing thing.

    2. Re:Socially progressive... by EvilMonkeySlayer · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Umm, the reason it exists is because as you may have heard Germany had a little bit of bother with nationalism around the 1930's and 1940's. It has nothing to do with social progressives and all to do with that early to mid 20th century problem.

      Regardless of whether the German government is left, right or liberal that law would still exist.

    3. Re:Socially progressive... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stuff like this is one reason out of many I'm very wary of social progressives. Germany is a socially progressive state, and I don't think it's at all a coincidence that such censorship exists.

      You are invited to come to my country, Venezuela, so you can see "social progressive" in all its splendor.

    4. Re:Socially progressive... by kinnell · · Score: 1

      You do realize that this was originally imposed upon Germany by the Allies at the end of World War II, right? It has since stuck even though the threat of a Nazi resurgence has now passed because it has become a part of the political status quo. It's not really specifically a left-wing thing.

      ...and no sane german politician is going to propose a bill to legalise the swastika, so this will remain law for quite some time.

      --
      If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
    5. Re:Socially progressive... by WankersRevenge · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What the fuck are you talking about? Not allowing Swatiskas in birthplace of the Nazi regime is somehow part of a worldwide trend on reducing freedoms? I know shit about contemporary German culture, but I can imagine that the swatiska is a emotional lightning rod for people there. You know ... the regime was responsible for the deaths of millions and millions of people. Sure, they aren't really dealing with it by hiding it, but that's their choice. This is a uniquely German issue, not some liberal plot to filter words or ideas.

      Also, equating video games with suffering because it doesn't have blood or swatiskas in it is like saying some dude is suffering because his fajita wasn't served with sour cream. It's not suffering. It's whining.

      Jesus ... I don't know who is a bigger ass ... you or the people who modded you insightful.

    6. Re:Socially progressive... by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Anyone in favor of censorship is not a social progressive. Progressives are in favor of individual freedom. That's the freedom to smoke what you want, fuck who you want, worship who you want, AND the freedom to advocate the political viewpoints you believe in. We believe in protecting your personal freedom whether or not we agree with what you choose to do with it.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    7. Re:Socially progressive... by thesandtiger · · Score: 1

      It's the "social progressives" of today who are somehow responsible for when, in the 1940's & 50's the German constitution was re-written to forbid Nazi imagery?

      Given that you apparently think the "social progressives" of today have access to time travel, I'd suggest that you have more urgent things to worry about than censorship, namely finding a good psychiatrist.

      --
      Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
    8. Re:Socially progressive... by Backward+Z · · Score: 1

      I read the parent post on Alterslash and came here to reply... and Wankers already said everything I wanted to.

      But seriously, we should be very wary of socially progressive institutions like Hogwarts. How they hold hard-and-fast to the censorship of "he-who-must-not-be-named" is truly indicative of why social progressives as a whole are only out to destroy freedoms and create a world facist state powered by a new slave class of nerds and gamers to run the censorship machines.

    9. Re:Socially progressive... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? America just had eight years of Bush and you think losing freedoms is a socially progressive thing?
      Here's a news-flash for you: denying freedoms and gaining power is desirable to anyone in a position of power and is not remotely limited to people of a particular ideology.

    10. Re:Socially progressive... by Nyeerrmm · · Score: 1

      Actually I think you're referring to "liberalism" not "progressivism". They're actually not synonyms according to the rest of the world, despite modern American rhetoric. Liberalism refers to what you're discussing, the freedom from government interference wherever possible, and in modern social liberalism, freedom from inequalities and unnecessary suffering. (You might say we have two liberal parties, a progressive, social liberal party and a conservative, economic liberal party.)

      Social progressivism, which often ends up sharing many goals with social liberalism, is more directly interested in eliminating inequalities and improving peoples lives based on modern understanding of science. Social progressivism isn't as attached to classic liberal ideals, and in fact one might argue from that point of view that banning the swastika is a step towards preventing past excesses and as such is a worthwhile policy.

    11. Re:Socially progressive... by pablodiazgutierrez · · Score: 1

      Of course, the fact that this particular case of censorship stems from the allied (US et al.) occupation is not relevant here.

    12. Re:Socially progressive... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, they aren't really dealing with it by hiding it, but that's their choice.

      It seems to be a common misconception that, since swastikas are outlawed in principle, you cannot see them in Germany. In reality, there are many exceptions to this law, which includes the use of the Nazi symbols for history education, for theater, movies, comedy etc. You cannot fly the Nazi flag in your backyard, or put a Nazi bumper sticker on your car. But in general there are many occasions for it to be seen, as long as it is clearly not in support of national socialism. For example, a theater in Berlin was staging the musical "The Producers" this year. While outside the theater they used satiric pseudo Nazi flags (http://www.flickr.com/photos/admiralspalast/3427537410/), they were using the real swastika flags on stage.

      I'm not 100% sure how the ban of swastikas in (anti-Nazi) games fits into that picture, since swastikas are OK in other non-serious contexts like comedy. Still, if you live in Germany and read magazines or watch TV etc, you are bound to see a lot of swastikas...

    13. Re:Socially progressive... by selven · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but the Germans aren't a monolithic entity, they are millions of people, and the majority of them don't have the right to deny a proper response to Nazism to everyone else.

    14. Re:Socially progressive... by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      We're actually past the "lightning rod" phase; somewhere within the last ten years we decided that we can't define ourselves through out past forever. Swastikas are still unwelcome on their own but you can do things like parodying a comedy "reality" show about a thoroughly unlikable office worker by making it a mockumentary about the Third Reich, complete with Hitler Greeting and swastikas everywhere. As long as you don't glorify the Nazis, in which case you thoroughly deserve the beating you hopefully get. Essentially though, if you show it in something resembling a historical setting and don't go out of your way to glorify, you're good.

      Video games are just overscrutinized. That's a general trend in Germany.


      Also, I am not an ass. ;)

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    15. Re:Socially progressive... by MindlessAutomata · · Score: 1

      Doesn't explain its continued strict enforcement and existence on law books.

    16. Re:Socially progressive... by MindlessAutomata · · Score: 1

      Yes. Yes, it is.

      People have the human right to express themselves any way they see fit, or to express any opinion or belief they have, so long as they are not violent about it.

      The swastica was not originally even a Nazi symbol. If someone wanted to co-opt it, mistakenly, or intentionally, but with some odd peaceful intent, this German law would not allow it.

      When you limit individual expression, you limit freedom. Once you silence any type of expression because you don't like it you can't say you have freedom of speech because the "freedom to say what I will let you say" is hardly a freedom at all.

      And, before you slip into talk of fire and theaters, note that you do have the freedom to say such things, you simply should just be held responsible civilly for the harm you cause other people, much like you are free to swing a bat but are responsible if that swing causes it to connect with someone's head.

    17. Re:Socially progressive... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once again I could counter with a reference to the Soviets, who killed more civilians than Nazi Germany did, yet the hammer and sickle is no big deal anywhere in the world...

    18. Re:Socially progressive... by pablodiazgutierrez · · Score: 1

      Which politician would want to be known for opposing a law against Nazis? That would be the fastest way to destroy a career. This law is an evolutionary reminder of times past, much like the appendix. It doesn't make sense now, but it won't go away.

  12. Censorship macht frei by czarangelus · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I'm glad so many American soldiers died in World War II to bring true prosperity and freedom to the German people... bwahha. Sorry, couldn't keep a straight face. My nuts to Angela Merkel and her repressive fascist government. If I were a German, I'd keep a Nazi flag in my window for the sole purpose of causing trouble, not because I agree with it or anything. Freedom of speech is for EVERYBODY, not just upper middle class suburbanites without a single contrarian opinion or brain in their heads. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/dogs-nazi-salute-lands-owner-in-jail-for-five-months-766438.html Heil-ing dog owner gets five years in jail. What a waste of taxpayer money. What are the chances of this dude being LESS Nazi-loving when he gets out of jail? Now he's a persecuted minority.

    --
    When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.
  13. Hey Germany by geekoid · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The Swastika didn't kill anyone.
    A bunch of jackasses did. Why don't you just outlaw people planning to kill other people?

    Do you think not having a Swastika will prevent a dictator or demagogue from choosing a different symbol to hide behind?

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:Hey Germany by Clandestine_Blaze · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Swastika didn't kill anyone.
      A bunch of jackasses did. Why don't you just outlaw people planning to kill other people?

      Do you think not having a Swastika will prevent a dictator or demagogue from choosing a different symbol to hide behind?

      Especially since it's a historically sacred symbol in Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Mithraism. Actually, reading about the Swastika here and how popular of a symbol it was before the rise and all of the Nazi Party, I'm shocked that you don't see it more often in Western nations.

    2. Re:Hey Germany by bcmm · · Score: 1

      Do you think not having a Swastika will prevent a dictator or demagogue from choosing a different symbol to hide behind?

      Using one which allows them to associate themselves with perceived "former glory" would work better. There would be a small number of automatic supporters.

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    3. Re:Hey Germany by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 1

      Especially since it's a historically sacred symbol in Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Mithraism. Actually, reading about the Swastika [wikipedia.org] here and how popular of a symbol it was before the rise and all of the Nazi Party, I'm shocked that you don't see it more often in Western nations.

      Swastika-type symbols were used in Europe from ancient times, but not always the 4-branched version. The 3-branched variant occurs in celtic symbols, from pre-christian and early christian eras (this is related to the three-branched whorls which are encountered even more often). It's carved in rocks and in monuments and drawn in illuminated manuscripts from the "dark ages" and early middle ages in the British Isles, especially Ireland. The 3-branched swastika, bowdlerized into three joined legs, is the symbol of the Isle of Man (named after Mananan mac Lir, the Irish god of the sea).
      Clearly, they should have named it MacWolfenstein or perhaps O'Wolfenstein (to avoid annoying Apple), and replaced all of the 4-branched symbols with 3-branched ones.

      --
      Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    4. Re:Hey Germany by elFisico · · Score: 1

      But there are still a bunch of jackasses around who try to revive that old feelings. And they would use those hated symbols to spread their evil thoughts.

      "Inglorious Basterds" was not censored in Germany because it clearly showed the situation from the right perspective.

    5. Re:Hey Germany by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those jackasses were motivated by the ideology the swastika stands for. Which is why we have - essentially - outlawed the ideology and it's symbols. And why we teach our children about ideology and the dynamics behind it, so no one can hide behind any symbol/"cause"/...

    6. Re:Hey Germany by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1


        Actually, reading about the Swastika here and how popular of a symbol it was before the rise and all of the Nazi Party, I'm shocked that you don't see it more often in Western nations.

      Actually it was a pagan symbol, and as you might know most of the so called "western" nations are mainly "christians" ... so it is really no wonder the symbol is in no wide spread use anymore.

      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    7. Re:Hey Germany by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Really? You're shocked that Western nations have stopped using a symbol and even removed previous uses of a symbol that became synonymous with the killing of millions of people?

      I don't find that shocking at all.

    8. Re:Hey Germany by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because after the Nazis perverted it, it became a lot less popular for some reason...

  14. Simple by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Just replace all swastika's with pink and yellow happy faces. Done.

  15. Swastika by Spatial · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If it's so bad, why the hell do they censor it when the point of the game is to lay waste to everything it stands for?

    Of course, rationality is far too much to expect from a censorship board.

    1. Re:Swastika by scorp1us · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      As the German tour guide on a Family Guy episode quipped, "it didn't happen" I think they'd rather bury the embarrassing past. Of course, this reeks of 1984 Newspeak. If it is hate crime legislation, then it should only be limited tothe intersection of hate and crimes, neither of which is happening. So I have to conclude that its the Newspeak deal.

      --
      Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
    2. Re:Swastika by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Ironic given that holocaust denial was once a serious crime in Germany.

    3. Re:Swastika by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

      Go to Germany, they are quite aware of their history and it is no way an attempt to hide their past. They are just ashamed of it and destroy the symbol wherever they can. They are a bit overzealous but still. Like in the US if you are a neo nazi you might annoy the cops. In germany you are likely to be imprisoned.

    4. Re:Swastika by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should get your information from other sources. You are simply wrong (IAAG).
      It also has nothing to do with Newspeak or hate crime legislation. The rationale behind it is simply that Nazism is not fun, should never be part of "pop culture" bould should exclusively be discussed in a political or historical context.
      Within a historical work you can show all the swastikas you want (or necessary), as long as you don't glorify the Nazi regime (yes, there is another law against that).
      Faschism/Nazism is serious business here - and that is a good thing.

    5. Re:Swastika by ImprovOmega · · Score: 1

      It Still is. Punishable by up to five years in prison.

    6. Re:Swastika by scorp1us · · Score: 1

      The next thing you know, they are going to blame the neo-Nazis for all the nation's problems, then round up all the into camps...

      If only intolerance wasn't so rich with irony!

      We have to realize that on average, people are stupid. Ignore those. Cherish the rest. Hate none of them.

      --
      Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
    7. Re:Swastika by Jesus_666 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Given that German history class (mandatory after elementary school) is about 50% history of WW2, Nazi Germany and everything concerning it, "it didn't happen" is as much the German opinion on the Third Reich as "we wish we were British" is the American opinion on their history.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    8. Re:Swastika by xkcdFan1011011101111 · · Score: 1

      This is anecdotal, but I visited Germany a few years ago. I am well read on Nazi history as it fascinates me in a strange morbid way that such a crazy political group could seize power in a modern society. I tried to discuss the Nazi rise in Germany with a group of German hosts, but they did *not* want to discuss it. I figured there was too much national shame/disgust about it and the subject was too emotional to broach with my hosts, so I quickly changed the conversation topic.

      I get the feeling that discussing WWII/Nazism is "off-limits" to discuss with the majority of Germans. I think this limits the discourse of history in a bad way...

    9. Re:Swastika by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      It actually boils down to a few things:

      - People were poor. Germany was in a rather bad shape when Hitler rose to power.
      - Poor people are willing to listen to anything if you feed them.
      - Poor people are willing to do normaly unacceptable things if you also give them work.
      - Lots of safeguards we take for granted today weren't in place, from the 5% hurdle (the lack of which made the parliament a fragmented mess) to laws against anti-constitutional parties. A bunch of thugs was all it took to essentially overtake the severely weakened government.
      - Also, people were very open to the idea of war, especially against France (reparations to france were one of the reasons why many Germans were poor; also, WW1 ended with France forcing a very embarrassing peace treaty onto Germany).

      In the end, however, the most important factor might have been "poor people plus a good orator make a mob".



      As for WW2 etc. being off limits: That's quite age-specific. Older people are generally more averse to discussing it. Many of them grew up during the end of the war and the postwar era; it's understandable that they would have the Nazi aversion internalized to a degree younger people don't have.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
  16. Re:Instead of Empowering a Symbol... by Cornwallis · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Witness the USA's own B Obama and the renewed, continuing, supported powers under the Patriot Act and patriot Act II. There, fixed that for ya.

  17. Well, ok.... by Chairboy · · Score: 4, Funny

    As long as the game doesn't include a map to Poland, we should be ok.

    1. Re:Well, ok.... by ioshhdflwuegfh · · Score: 1

      As long as the game doesn't include a map to Poland[...].

      or the map of the world.

  18. Thank goodness... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    for free speech. Oh, wait. Never mind. Comment withdrawn.

    1. Re:Thank goodness... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately free speech is guaranteed by the constitution, which was written in 1949, while the law that banned everything nazi-looking was written in 1945 by the allied control council. This means it pre-dates the constitution and is therefore not bound by it. Every law that was written before 2009-05-29 is above the constitution and will therefore be in effect until the parliament makes another law to kill it.

      And seriously, making a law that allows the public display of nazi symbols? Next century perhaps, these days that's still political suicide.

  19. Regenerative censoring shielding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can create a metaphasic interplexing censoring shield by having the entire game online, and allowing third-party linking of individual textures. A given texture that is controversial will be linked to on Slashdot and made unavailable.

  20. I'd love to see the other German edits by jollyreaper · · Score: 2, Funny

    Will they replace all the swastikas with walkie-talkie's? I always maintained in the bunker with Hitler and Eva, Hitler shot first. Did that get changed, too? And is the blood still green?

    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    1. Re:I'd love to see the other German edits by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      I always maintained in the bunker with Hitler and Eva, Hitler shot first.

      <tinfoil hat>Dude, Hitler's still alive. I thought everybody knew that? He's living a peaceful life as a painter somewhere in South America.</tinfoil hat>

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    2. Re:I'd love to see the other German edits by orzetto · · Score: 1

      I always maintained in the bunker with Hitler and Eva, Hitler shot first. Did that get changed, too?

      Hitler was the only one to shoot. Eva Braun killed herself with a poison pill.

      --
      Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
  21. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  22. Oblig.. by kazade84 · · Score: 1

    Don't mention the war. I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it. So it's all forgotten now and let's hear no more about it. So that's two egg mayonnaise, a prawn Goebbels, a Herman Goering and four Colditz salads....no, wait a minute...I got confused because everyone keeps mentioning the war. -- Basil Fawlty

  23. Do they censor the "real" swastika as well? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is after all, in its "right" rotation, an ancient symbol for well-being that existed thousands of years before the nazis, who depict it in a 45 degree angle.

    Do they "moral panic" over the real ones as well, despite their positive meaning?

  24. Re:Instead of Empowering a Symbol... by Schnoogs · · Score: 1, Informative

    someone mod this guy troll. Spare us the clichéd rant against Bush. You'd have to be pretty ignorant of history to label Bush a fascist compared to guys like Hitler. Spare us the kool aid induced hyperbole. The guy is no longer in office. Take the 20 bumper stickers of your car and give it a rest already.

  25. If they not wearing symbols of the nazi's... by santax · · Score: 1

    why in the world would I try to kill them? Damn Germans, still the same insensitive clods they were back in '37-'45.

    1. Re:If they not wearing symbols of the nazi's... by xkcdFan1011011101111 · · Score: 1

      whoa, mod parent down...

  26. You Mean Like When Those Xmas Creches Attack? by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 1

    Symbols do empower. And the weak and narrow-minded get all threatened-like. Swastikas, Crosses, Pentagrams, Joker-Faces -- none have power inherently, except that which the Already Scared and Uncertain impart to them.

    1. Re:You Mean Like When Those Xmas Creches Attack? by ThePhilips · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Symbols do empower.

      Rituals too.

      The point is that banning a symbol doesn't change people. And symbol gets its meaning from people. It only suppresses expression of their true wishes. They'd find another symbol - and another scapegoat to blame for their problems - as soon as they would accumulate enough negative emotions.

      What actually happened is that svastika's relation to Hitler and nazis was as good as perpetuated by the ban. IOW, you can't get over the problem by forcing yourself to stop thinking about. That simply doesn't work.

      Germany would have more success parting svastika from its past by doing reverse: paint svastikas with flowers and funny colors and and slap them all over the country.

      Make people smile at it - not shun it. Suppression doesn't work - reframing does.

      --
      All hope abandon ye who enter here.
  27. Germany needs to get over it already! by erroneus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's freaking history. The U.S. didn't respond to the history of the civil war by banning any and all rebel markings. The symbols of Germany's history will always exist. Making it so that people don't see it as often changes nothing. But the existence of law that outlaws particular symbols or words are harmful. The next step is outlawing thoughts and feelings.

    1. Re:Germany needs to get over it already! by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      The U.S. didn't respond to the history of the civil war by banning any and all rebel markings.

      True, although the confederate flag has been under fire in recent years.

      Also, swastikas seem to cause a great deal of worry even in the U.S., even if they are not legally censored. A few years back, my best friend in high school drew a swastika on his book cover. You see, he was becoming intrigued by Eastern religions, and he had drawn a few different religious symbols on his book cover. The form of the swastika was clearly not the Nazi type (since it contained dots, etc.), but my friend was led off to the principal's office for a talk. I believe he was then made to go to a few sessions with the guidance counselor, even after removing the book cover and attempting to explain what the symbol meant for thousands of years before appropriation by the Nazis.

      This is what happened to someone near the top of his high school class and who never had been in any trouble in school before. All because he drew a picture of a random religious symbol. Ah, ignorance....

    2. Re:Germany needs to get over it already! by tenco · · Score: 1

      I don't see what's harmful about outlawing nazi symbols except when they are used for educational purposes. This way they can't be brought out of context and serve as a constant reminder of those bleak times in the past so that they hopefully will never have to be endured again. Those who don't remember history are doomed to repeat it.

    3. Re:Germany needs to get over it already! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FYI: The ban does not apply to educational material, among a few other things.

    4. Re:Germany needs to get over it already! by erroneus · · Score: 1

      If I were the parent of that child, I would have some serious problems with they way they handled that case and would have pursued resolution and/or settlement.

      The fact that it is still protected speech is sufficient in my opinion. People are still allowed to express their views both for and against it. It's good.

    5. Re:Germany needs to get over it already! by erroneus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Would you see the harm in outlawing the christian cross? How about the pentagram? How about the star of david? The moon and star? The hammer and sickle?

      While we're at it, I don't see the harm in outlawing a lot of things. But then again, my views are going to be different from many others and that is the point. What is harmful is one body limiting the free expression and opinion of others, even [and especially] "unpopular thought."

      I can still say "nigger" legally and I'm thankful for it. There are likely to be other consequences, but they are not imposed by law and that's the way it should be. If the game that contains swastikas is shunned by the people of Germany, that is good. If some Germans don't care and would enjoy playing the game? That's good too. But when one body says that some things are illegal because it contains offensive symbols? I have to take issue with it.

      Now I can hear comments coming ... "what about child porn then?! isn't that the same body telling us that some things are illegal because it contains offensive content?" Well yes... yes it is and I have issues with that as well. Would I rather that child porn not exist? Yeah, certainly. Would I prefer that rape never occur? Yes. Would I wish that images of mutilated bodies from war and disaster not appear in public? Absolutely. I think materials and information like these should be legal. The line should be drawn at the action people take. Don't war. Don't cause mass destruction. Don't murder or rape. And most certainly don't exploit children who are not capable of making choices for themselves. These are actions that should all be prohibited by law and punishable. But things like porn are subjective and the grey areas are far too many. (Some say that cartoons depicting children in sexual situations is child porn... but isn't child porn law supposed to focus on the exploitation of children and not crimes of thought and imagination?)

      The line between thought and action is pretty clear and obvious. Punish actions, not thoughts.

    6. Re:Germany needs to get over it already! by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      If I were the parent of that child, I would have some serious problems with they way they handled that case and would have pursued resolution and/or settlement.

      It's been awhile, but if I remember correctly, my friend hid the situation from his parents at first out of embarrassment, but eventually his mother did get involved and had a long talk with someone in the administration about religious symbols. In the end, I think they still held to their guns about asking him to remove the cover, since he was not using those symbols for religious purposes, merely as decorative doodles about something he was currently interested in.

      The fact that it is still protected speech is sufficient in my opinion. People are still allowed to express their views both for and against it. It's good.

      Oh, I wasn't contradicting your original post. I was just pointing out that even though we don't have government censorship in the U.S., many institutions and groups still feel the need to police symbols of Nazism or the Confederacy, even out of ignorance.

      Although not directly related to the Civil War, witness the recent debate in Rhode Island arguing to shorten its name from the original "Rhode Island and Providence Plantations." Why? Because the word "plantation" is apparently taboo these days because at some point later in history some "plantations" were in the South and many of those had slaves at some point. Never mind that the word had none of these connotations in the 17th century when the colony was named. In the end, they've decided to let the voters decide, so again, it's all good. But I do think legislatures deciding to remove words or alter historical names of things would be a kind of censorship, even if rather innocuous. And it's especially bad when done out of ignorance... something I think is a disturbing trend these days in the U.S., even if it's not officially government-sanctioned "censorship."

    7. Re:Germany needs to get over it already! by erroneus · · Score: 1

      Hehehe... just wait until someone wakes up and realizes that the "plant" in "auto manufacturing plant" is short for "plantation." I suppose every black UAW member will have issue with that word as well.

      Yeah, I recognize you weren't contradicting me, but I did want to emphasise the difference between social disapproval and making something illegal.

      People are always going to be stupid. I have been and will always exhibit similar traits of human stupidity. It may come from knee-jerk reactions, or patterned/habitual thought or preconceived notion, but the facts are, without the sharing and discussion of ideas, the raising of points and counter-points, we won't be able to overcome stupidity alone. Different people with different views will hopefully enable a much larger view on things. Bigger problems come when some attempt to exclude certain views, ideas or symbols from discussion. There is no cure for human stupidity, but it can be mitigated by allowing as many people to be heard as possible.

    8. Re:Germany needs to get over it already! by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      What's the difference between a textbook having the symbol saying "the people who used this symbol were bad", and a video game with the symbol saying "the people who used this symbol were bad, shoot them"?

      The law should only refer to the swastika being used in a *positive* sense. Although that leaves it open to interpretation, it's no more interpretation than what is "educational" and what isn't.

    9. Re:Germany needs to get over it already! by Draek · · Score: 1

      The next step is outlawing thoughts and feelings.

      The day the technology exists to detect it, that's precisely what's going to happen.

      And not just in Germany.

      --
      No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
    10. Re:Germany needs to get over it already! by ioshhdflwuegfh · · Score: 1

      This is what happened to someone near the top of his high school class and who never had been in any trouble in school before. All because he drew a picture of a random religious symbol. Ah, ignorance....

      If by ignorance you allude that your friend did not know about the Holocaust, then yes, your story is very troubling.

    11. Re:Germany needs to get over it already! by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      If by ignorance you allude that your friend did not know about the Holocaust, then yes, your story is very troubling.

      My friend was very aware of the Holocaust. Did you not even notice that I mentioned the swastika clearly had elements that differentiated it from a Nazi swastika, or did you follow the link to the Wikipedia article and read about various kinds of swastikas and their uses over thousands of years?

      If he had essentially drawn a Nazi flag with the correct colors, etc., they might have a point about its offensiveness. But it was a pencil drawing with a bunch of dots that looked something like this. I think it may even have been "left-facing," because he was actually even trying to differentiate it more from Nazi versions, like these.

      Do you really want to deny use of symbols that are important to some religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism) that have over a billion followers because an unrelated group of people (Nazis) adopted a similar symbol and persecuted another religious group?

    12. Re:Germany needs to get over it already! by ioshhdflwuegfh · · Score: 1

      My friend was very aware of the Holocaust. Did you not even notice that I mentioned the swastika clearly had elements that differentiated it from a Nazi swastika, or did you follow the link to the Wikipedia article and read about various kinds of swastikas and their uses over thousands of years?

      You've never once mentioned that your friend was aware of it. This is not without significance, as it very well may be related to all the troubles he had about his sketches, making all that lamenting over his sorry fate superfluous, not to mention those elliptic mention of ignorance. You know, pupils do the damnest things, but that does not necessarily turn them into neo-Nazis, except when it does, and there the pedagogical role of the school is important.

      Do you really want to deny use of symbols that are important to some religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism) that have over a billion followers because an unrelated group of people (Nazis) adopted a similar symbol and persecuted another religious group?

      I didn't hear anybody among those billions of people complaining, unless of course you're their representative, or perhaps you're implying that these numbers and mentioning of different religions have some specific weight when talking about Holocaust (they don't.)

    13. Re:Germany needs to get over it already! by megrims · · Score: 1

      Your nick suits you.

  28. Re:Dixie Flag by Schnoogs · · Score: 0

    It's called freedom of speech...you might have heard of it

  29. Head asplode by TheBilgeRat · · Score: 1

    Does anyone else find it interesting that Germans would want to play a game where the main goal is to waste Germans, regardless of their terrible ideological stance? I find it odd that it's just the swastikas they are objecting to...But then, it's just a game, right?

    On a side note (don't have a linky), I had a friend stationed in Germany that talked about the pet ownership laws. Depending on the breed of dog, there are building codes for the exact size of dog house required for the breed, which are part of the licensing and inspection process. Guess the moral of the story is the Germans sure like their laws.

    1. Re:Head asplode by Maltheus · · Score: 1

      Guess you never played Deus Ex then. Granted, you're fighting the UN, but presumably staffed by Americans.

  30. Rush'n Attack!!! by Dareth · · Score: 1

    You obviously never played Rush'n Attack comrade!

    --

    I only look human.
    My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
  31. Don't mention the war ! by BigJim.fr · · Score: 4, Funny

    Basil Fawlty: Is something wrong ?
    4th German: Will you please stop talking about the war ?
    Basil Fawlty: Me ? You started it !
    4th German: We did not start it.
    Basil Fawlty: Yes you did, you invaded Poland.

    1. Re:Don't mention the war ! by fluxrad · · Score: 1

      Basil Fawlty: Yes you did, you invaded Poland.

      Why, oh why, doesn't anyone give a shit about the Austrians?

      --
      "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
    2. Re:Don't mention the war ! by Boronx · · Score: 2, Insightful

      'Cause the Poles fought back?

    3. Re:Don't mention the war ! by pjt33 · · Score: 1

      Because Austria didn't have mutual defence treaties with France and Britain?

    4. Re:Don't mention the war ! by selven · · Score: 1

      Brian: Yeah, in this pamphlet, I don't see anything between 1939 and 1945.
      German tour guide: They were all on vacation!

    5. Re:Don't mention the war ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because one of them ruled Germany then?

    6. Re:Don't mention the war ! by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      Theres a saying in Poland:

      We are seperated from Italy by the Alps, from France by a river, between us and Britain is the sea. But between Germany and us there is only hate.

      or something like that.

      And the Polish word for German might well derive from something like "Don't talk to them".

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    7. Re:Don't mention the war ! by Lunzo · · Score: 1

      Whoosh!

    8. Re:Don't mention the war ! by GbrDead · · Score: 1

      And the Polish word for German might well derive from something like "Don't talk to them".

      It is not only Polish, it is common to all Slavic languages. And it means "mute person". On the other hand, the word "Slav" stems from the word "word".

  32. The paradox is evident... by agorist_apostle · · Score: 1

    Germany wants to ban Nazi symbols...so then people will forget what they look like...in another generation or two, the symbolism of swastikas could conceivably be forgotten and a whole new generation of young, impressionable Germans will be reintroduced to cliched, over-the-top shooters featuring plenty of Nazi regalia because no one will known what it looks like or be able to recognize it, therefore no one will know to ban it.

    1. Re:The paradox is evident... by psyeye · · Score: 5, Informative

      It clearly shows that you have absolutely no clue of what you're talking about.

      Being from Germany I can assure you that Nazi symbols are not banned from any history book or documentation or whatever. But presenting Nazi symbols in another context than education (or similar) is not allowed.

      This ban helps keeping Nazis under control - you have a simple thing in your hands to kick their butts with this law and others. Additionally, regarding the well known history of Germany there is NO REASON to show, wear or use Nazi symbols other than for a) education (allowed) or b) propaganda for forces against the German democracy (disallowed).

    2. Re:The paradox is evident... by agorist_apostle · · Score: 1

      Well, glad to see the legendary German sense of humor is still functioning as well as it ever did...

    3. Re:The paradox is evident... by tenco · · Score: 1

      Nazi symbols are not banned for educational purposes. Because a major and mandatory part of history in german schools is concerned with WW1 and WW2. This way Nazi symbols will be shown and remembered in a proper historical context.

    4. Re:The paradox is evident... by agorist_apostle · · Score: 1

      I officially give up trying to be dryly humorous.

    5. Re:The paradox is evident... by ioshhdflwuegfh · · Score: 1

      Glad to see you are still an idiot.

    6. Re:The paradox is evident... by Bragador · · Score: 1

      I don't want to be rude but you are extremely self-centered. The swastika is more than a Nazi Symbol. Learn to respect other cultures, especially when these cultures make most of the Earth's population. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika Even the West used it before the Nazi did. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_use_of_the_Swastika_in_the_early_20th_century

    7. Re:The paradox is evident... by Logic+and+Reason · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Additionally, regarding the well known history of Germany there is NO REASON to show, wear or use Nazi symbols other than for a) education (allowed) or b) propaganda for forces against the German democracy (disallowed).

      So which is Wolfenstein?

    8. Re:The paradox is evident... by ioshhdflwuegfh · · Score: 1

      So then, you allow that some symbol has some extraordinary meaning in some cultures, but deny that a similar symbol has an extremely negative meaning in Germany (and not only in Germany I mind you)?

    9. Re:The paradox is evident... by ioshhdflwuegfh · · Score: 1

      Why don't you ask ID this question?

    10. Re:The paradox is evident... by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 1

      Do you really think that the next fascists will march behind the swastika? You think that a future Joseph Goebbles would use that iconography again?

      The next fascists will look nothing like the Nazis at all.

    11. Re:The paradox is evident... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your attitude is truly frightening.

    12. Re:The paradox is evident... by Kidbro · · Score: 1

      Additionally, regarding the well known history of Germany there is NO REASON to show, wear or use Nazi symbols other than for a) education (allowed) or b) propaganda for forces against the German democracy (disallowed)

      That statement is, of course, proven false by the very topic of the story. One reason could be, say, a video game. I assume that in your eyes it's not a good reason - but a reason it is.

      And for the record, I'm not trying to defend the nonsensical drivel in the post you replied to.

    13. Re:The paradox is evident... by ax_42 · · Score: 1

      I'm sure there are a lot more reasons to use the Swastika than the ones you listed (satire, for one) but hey, as long as YOU don't think they're ok, let's ban them all. Have you noticed how close you are to being dictatorial?

      And yes, I have more than enough cultural background to be able to argue this - raised German-speaking but outside Germany and then lived there for years. You guys have been brainwashed for 3 generations and it's understandable that it's hard for you to figure that out.

  33. Re:Dixie Flag by archangel9 · · Score: 0

    slavery =/= genocide.

    Not everyone that few Dixie was a slave owner. Personally, I fly the Gadsden.

    Everyone that wore a Swastika had Nazi ideals, or at least claimed to agree with them to get cool uniforms.

  34. Re:Dixie Flag by R2.0 · · Score: 1

    "And yet here in the US we still allow the Dixie Flag to be flown. Once you have lost the war you should not be able to continue using your flag."

    Yep - and we can burn our official flag, too. Although nobody does it anymore - once it was declared legal the act lost all of its shock value.

    --
    "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
  35. Re:Dixie Flag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know. I'd much rather idiotic bigotry be obvious than hidden. Someone with the "Stars and Bars" flying proudly makes it that much easier for me to know that I ought to avoid them.

  36. Re:Dixie Flag by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

    I see you are in favor of censorship. How un-American of you.

    --
    There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
  37. Comparison Shots by DrWho520 · · Score: 1

    Just wanted to thank eldavojohn for the review link. Apparently the site is blocked due to adult/pornographic content on my work network. Which is always a nice message to see pop up in your browser...

    --
    The cancel button is your friend. Do not hesitate to use it.
  38. U.S. Flag: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The same should apply to U.S. fiascoes in Iraq and Afghan-Pakistan wars.

    Yours In Zelenodolsk,
    K. Trout

  39. Censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Retards. Hiding the past doesn't make the it go away. It can only make it more appealing to the weak minded.

  40. Re:Dixie Flag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow are you ignorant. (Statement, not question). The Dixie flag stands for more than just a nation, or a war, or racism. It stands for a way of life, a heritage that was handed down generation to generation, and a symbol of rebellion against big government. Does taxation without representation ring a bell? The ONLY reason I DON'T fly one is because of jack asses like yourself who would probably key my car because you think I'm a racist (of which I am definitely not).

  41. Re:Dixie Flag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not? Is there a Lost Book of Rules somewhere that you've dug up that says when a war is over, the culture that began it must be suppressed? Good luck even getting the world to agree on who started any given war.

  42. Re:Dixie Flag by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

    BTW, I highly approve of people being allowed to fly the Confederate Battle Flag and the Nazi flag. People flying flags makes it easier to tell which people are the enemy.

    --
    There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
  43. Re:Dixie Flag by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

    Yep - and we can burn our official flag, too. Although nobody does it anymore - once it was declared legal the act lost all of its shock value.

    People still do it. The news just doesn't have an orgasm about it.

    http://blog.dailycal.org/photo/2009/09/14/flag-burning/
    http://www.inlandnewstoday.com/story.php?s=10259
    http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2009/09/flag_burning_at_westlake.php

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  44. Reading some comments by Kupfernigk · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Some of these US posters come over as having a mental age of about 13. You seem to think that "freedom of speech" is the freedom to say or do anything. That's an interesting US interpretation, but it has been popularised by oppressive corporations who want the right to lie to you in the name of advertising, or news. In the US it is used to attack, unfairly and inappropriately, politicians and public figures. Your libel laws are a thug's charter. (British libel laws are not bad, it is the over the top legal fees that are bad. They are designed to prevent people making false accusations of wrongdoing, whereas in the US you can make false accusations and claim to "believe" them to avoid punishment.)

    You simply have no idea of the significance of Nazi symbols in Europe; the US was never invaded, and the US Government took good care not to expose US citizens to the truth about the Allied invasion of Europe, concealing (for instance) the horrors of D-Day and the Bulge. Your Government takes good care that you don't know what war is like, especially since public reaction ended the ground war in Vietnam.

    When you emerge from your bedrooms and basements, try visiting Germany and the east and actually learning some real history. Then you might understand why, to much of Europe, the use of Nazi symbols in a game is highly inappropriate. But, until you are grown up and actually know something about the world other than soundbites and games, shut the fuck up about civil liberties in a country about which you clearly know less than nothing. And yes, you do make me cross. Go talk to some of the American survivors of WW2, they might tell you a thing or two.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
    1. Re:Reading some comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't remember my password, and honestly I'm too peeved to bother retreiving it at the moment.

      Yes, our Freedom of Speech can be used against us in a court, or abused by corporations or media outlets, however that does not make it a bad thing. It simply makes it an easy thing to exploit and abuse.

      As far as it being inappropriate to use the Nazi symbol in media; well maybe it is in bad form, and maybe it makes some people uncomfortable, but it's a bit of history. One which affected the world, not just Europe. The Nazi laws in Europe are significant, but they're also oppressive and insane. To say a country is so scarred by a piece of history that it has to ban a symbol in order to protect people from being sad, uncomfortable, or in Germany's case for feeling remourseful is downright ridiculous. Grown ups, as you say, should be able to handle whatever flow of emotion comes from viewing these symbols, and should also be able to say for themselves "I'm not comfortable with this, I'm not going to purchase this game". It shouldn't require action from any government to say "no we can't have that, it might upset people who were/are affected by that bit of history".

      Stop pretending that Europe is so much more enlightened than the US. Stop pretending that being a country that was invaded in some way makes you (who are very likely not even old enough to have been a twinkle in someone's eye when Nazy Germany invaded Europe) an expert on how that feels, or what it's like. Fair money says you weren't there, you weren't a part of it, and you can't REALLY sympathize with it anymore than someone from a different country can.

    2. Re:Reading some comments by i8myh8 · · Score: 1

      I can't remember my password, and honestly I'm too peeved to bother retreiving it at the moment.

      Yes, our Freedom of Speech can be used against us in a court, or abused by corporations or media outlets, however that does not make it a bad thing. It simply makes it an easy thing to exploit and abuse.

      As far as it being inappropriate to use the Nazi symbol in media; well maybe it is in bad form, and maybe it makes some people uncomfortable, but it's a bit of history. One which affected the world, not just Europe. The Nazi laws in Europe are significant, but they're also oppressive and insane. To say a country is so scarred by a piece of history that it has to ban a symbol in order to protect people from being sad, uncomfortable, or in Germany's case for feeling remourseful is downright ridiculous. Grown ups, as you say, should be able to handle whatever flow of emotion comes from viewing these symbols, and should also be able to say for themselves "I'm not comfortable with this, I'm not going to purchase this game". It shouldn't require action from any government to say "no we can't have that, it might upset people who were/are affected by that bit of history".

      Stop pretending that Europe is so much more enlightened than the US. Stop pretending that being a country that was invaded in some way makes you (who are very likely not even old enough to have been a twinkle in someone's eye when Nazy Germany invaded Europe) an expert on how that feels, or what it's like. Fair money says you weren't there, you weren't a part of it, and you can't REALLY sympathize with it anymore than someone from a different country can.

      FYI This was me.

    3. Re:Reading some comments by KingMotley · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I would agree that some of the people posting not only have a mental age of about 13, but are likely chronologically 12-15 as well. That doesn't change the fact that the anti-nazi laws in Germany look pretty silly for those of us that don't actually live there. You shouldn't comment on other countries laws if you don't know them very well. Your interpretation (or at least your statement) of the libel, slander, and tort laws within the US makes for a nice sound bite, but it's not nearly that simple. Simply believing a statement to be true, or the proclamation of such isn't a valid defense. Just an FYI - the US libel laws are based on the original British defamatory laws, and are very similar at their core.

      You should really brush up on your history a little bit, because the US was invaded. The white house burned down to the ground. We don't ban flags, symbols, or discussions about the subject. We don't ban the confederate flag, or other civil war era material. Vietnam wasn't a war, it was a police action -- big difference. Burying your head in the sand and pretending something didn't happen or doesn't exist doesn't make you better, it just raises a new generation of ignorant citizens.

    4. Re:Reading some comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To say a country is so scarred by a piece of history that it has to ban a symbol in order to protect people from being sad, uncomfortable, or in Germany's case for feeling remourseful is downright ridiculous. Grown ups, as you say, should be able to handle whatever flow of emotion comes from viewing these symbols, and should also be able to say for themselves "I'm not comfortable with this, I'm not going to purchase this game". It shouldn't require action from any government to say "no we can't have that, it might upset people who were/are affected by that bit of history".

      Have you ever considered that it isn't to stop people feeling upset but to remove it as a rallying symbol by Neo-Nazis? The feeling when these laws were introduced was horror at what had been done, not because they might make anyone upset.

    5. Re:Reading some comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure the Hindu, Buddhists, and the rest of the billion or so people for whom the swastika has a peaceful religious meaning that was subverted by the Nazis would like their symbol back. Just because the Nazis misused it is no reason to ban it. Trying to erase it from history is just amazingly childish and misguided.

    6. Re:Reading some comments by Bragador · · Score: 1

      The more you see the Swastika as THE nazi symbol, the more it stays true.

      Everyone should wake up and understand that it's much more than that. It is still used widely in asia on goods. Even clothes from India can have it on them.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika

      In China, instead of the red cross or red crescent, they even have a small Red Swastika Society. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Swastika_Society

      So I think it's time we take the time to truly understand what the symbol means and stop associating it with Hitler. Even the West used it before the Nazi did.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_use_of_the_Swastika_in_the_early_20th_century

    7. Re:Reading some comments by fluxrad · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oohh! +5: LOLUSians!

      You simply have no idea of the significance of Nazi symbols in Europe

      I think it's you that must have no idea of the significance of Nazi symbols in the rest of the world. Irrespective of your personal beliefs, in the U.S. we hold freedom of speech to be our dearest liberty. That includes, no matter how distasteful you may find it to be, the right of others to say damn near anything they please. That's why, despite slavery being the United States' version of original sin, we allow nutjob racists to run organized marches in the streets (As a presumed European, you simply have no idea of the significance of KKK symbols in the U.S. right?). That's why we allow southerners to fly the Confederate flag, or allow anyone who damn well pleases the right to suggest that 9/11 was an inside job, or that Obama is a <insert racial epithet here>. I'm sure someone else will drop the obligatory Voltaire quote.

      US Government took good care not to expose US citizens to the truth about the Allied invasion of Europe, concealing (for instance) the horrors of D-Day and the Bulge.

      Honestly, given the sacrifice (and stories) of American servicemen in both battles, I think that's an incredibly offensive thing to say. And I'm glad you have the right to say it.

      --
      "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
    8. Re:Reading some comments by Yacoby · · Score: 1

      It isn't banned for religious use (religious symbols cannot be banned in Germany). It seems as though people haven't even read the laws they are debating. What a surprise.

    9. Re:Reading some comments by midicase · · Score: 1

      I think you are missing the point, removing anything from an authentic replication in the name of fear. Is the US better off in that it is legal to fly a confederate flag? Oh, wait, I guess that has nothing to do with "real" history.

    10. Re:Reading some comments by KingMotley · · Score: 3, Informative

      Sorry, I should have mentioned that I am of German descent. A large portion of my family still resides in Germany, and I have spent significant time there, starting from childhood, albeit I haven't been there in many years. Some of Germany's civil laws are pretty silly, or at least were. Being able to drink pretty much as soon as you can ask for it, but it's illegal to play pinball or video games in public at least until you turn 18. You can't have minors in movie theaters in the evening, even if accompanied by their parents, watching PG movies?

      Odd, but I don't necessarily disagree, I also saw a large 4-5 story building with a mural of a naked/bare chested lady. Naked/bare chested women on public tv during the evening. I remember watching (sorry, my german is pretty poor, so my cousin was translating some), about some plot to make bras that secretly blow up like balloons. A rather silly plot line, but plenty of gratuitous nudity during prime time. Personally, I find that fine as well, but I find it odd that as open minded as that is, the great lengths the country has gone to hide it's own history.

      Just some of the absurdities I encountered while there.

    11. Re:Reading some comments by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      Your protection in Germany from media and advertising distortions must give you great trust in what you are told. It's true that Nazi censorship was some of the most wide-reaching in history, and that propaganda managed to dupe your entire nation into overlooking the extermination of millions of your fellow citizens and the fact that you were involved in an insane war, but comparing modern government censorship with that of the past is ignorant. These children are unaware of Germany's great suffering during the War, and don't understand that extreme measures are necessary. The real danger is "entartete Gedanken" that undermine your fatherland! Everyone must register their address with police and carry a national ID card so that these "thugs" can be found and relocated!

    12. Re:Reading some comments by StormReaver · · Score: 1

      Some of these US posters come over as having a mental age of about 13.

      Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, meet pot.

      ...whereas in the US you can make false accusations and claim to "believe" them to avoid punishment.

      No, you cannot. You can say, "My product is the best" without fear because "best" is a nebulous term with a near infinite number of plausible interpretations. If you say, "John Doe is a child rapist", John Doe can sue your ass off.

    13. Re:Reading some comments by Maltheus · · Score: 1

      To quote a German, "None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free." What gives one man the right to tell another what he can say? And who determines what constitutes a false accusation? You complain about us not knowing what war is like while simultaneously promoting the censorship of history. You talk about oppressive corporations, but they don't steal my money at gunpoint or tell me what I can do or say. I shouldn't "unfairly" attack politicians, because that's not what free speech is for?? How convenient that the only people in a position to decide what's unfair are the people being attacked. I'm sure that power won't be abused.

    14. Re:Reading some comments by DancesWithBlowTorch · · Score: 1

      As far as it being inappropriate to use the Nazi symbol in media; well maybe it is in bad form, and maybe it makes some people uncomfortable, but it's a bit of history. One which affected the world, not just Europe. The Nazi laws in Europe are significant, but they're also oppressive and insane. To say a country is so scarred by a piece of history that it has to ban a symbol in order to protect people from being sad, uncomfortable, or in Germany's case for feeling remourseful is downright ridiculous. Grown ups, as you say, should be able to handle whatever flow of emotion comes from viewing these symbols, and should also be able to say for themselves "I'm not comfortable with this, I'm not going to purchase this game". It shouldn't require action from any government to say "no we can't have that, it might upset people who were/are affected by that bit of history".

      On the other hand, in Germany we can say "Fuck" on the radio without it being censored out by the government in order to protect people from feeling sad or uncomfortable. I'm wondering what incredible historic catastrophy must have brought about those oppressive censorhip laws in the States.

    15. Re:Reading some comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fair money says you weren't there, you weren't a part of it, and you can't REALLY sympathize with it anymore than someone from a different country can.

      Wrong. My grandfathers were there, and before they died I read their diaries and sat down with them and talked In school, we talked with other survivors of WWII and / or resistance members, and also a concentration camp survivor. I have read several historical accounts of the Holocaust and the Nazi System, watched some historical/slightly fictional movies set in the timespan of the third Reich or just before. I have also listened to several of Hitler's/Goebbel's speeches and read a few chapters of "Mein Kampf".
      All of that in an attempt to better understand the dynamics behind a collective mass murder which my grandparents (which I got to know as kind and loving people!) took - in small ways - part in.
      I very much doubt that you have expended anywhere near this much effort, which is understandable because it does not touch your family or your country.

      However, if the subject at hand is the German law dealing with these matters, then SHUT THE FUCK UP!

    16. Re:Reading some comments by ioshhdflwuegfh · · Score: 1

      So I think it's time we take the time to truly understand what the symbol means[...]

      Who are these "we"? If you think of some abstract whole of the humanity reaching the universal truth about the given symbol, then aren't you already trying to demonstrate that there is no such a truth(?), which by no means precludes the truth that the swastika was used as a widely disseminated and highly exposed symbol of the Nazi Germany and was and still is associated with the Holocaust.

    17. Re:Reading some comments by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1


      That doesn't change the fact that the anti-nazi laws in Germany look pretty silly for those of us that don't actually live there.

      90% of the US laws (or court rulings) look completely silly for every european that does not actually live there as well.

      You shouldn't comment on other countries laws if you don't know them very well.
      I second that: You shouldn't comment on other countries laws if you don't know them very well. Why don't you try to read them instead of following uninformed the slashdot bashing? I refer to the anti nazi constitution Paragraph, as there is no such law.

      Your interpretation (or at least your statement) of the libel, slander, and tort laws within the US makes for a nice sound bite, but it's not nearly that simple.
      Your interpretation of anti Nazi laws (or at least your statement ^^) is not nearly that simple, either.

      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    18. Re:Reading some comments by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1


      That's why we allow southerners to fly the Confederate flag, ...

      Thats a bullshit statement. You can raise every flag in germany / europe except the nazi flag. Why? Because no one cares about other flags. And for exact that reason no one cares about the confederation flag in the USA. You "allow" them to fly it? Rofl, you have no legal means to "deny" it, and no moral means to do so! That would fit more! The secession war was a completely legal attempt of the south to follow its own pursuit. However a war emerged, the south got conquered and lost the war. Any similarity to Nazi germany or the Nazi Party or to Nazi symbols is simply not existing!!

      Honestly, given the sacrifice (and stories) of American servicemen in both battles, I think that's an incredibly (made bold by me) offensive thing to say.

      It is certainly not! The OP is completely right. The D-Day offensive was a war crime. A war crime committed by the american führung against its own soldiers and citizens. The americans just massed enough ships and landing crafts in front of the coast to run conscripted soldiers into the german MGs until the germans ran out of ammunition. From the first 50 waves of landing crafts, how many people survived? 5% perhaps? Or even less?

      Anyway both points, confederation flag and D-Day has nothing to do with the original story ...

      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    19. Re:Reading some comments by petrus4 · · Score: 1

      Irrespective of your personal beliefs, in the U.S. we hold freedom of speech to be our dearest liberty.

      The only people on the planet who still consider America to be a politically free country, are domestic Americans themselves.

      The rest of us know better. ;)

    20. Re:Reading some comments by KingMotley · · Score: 1

      See my above post regarding mental age.

      Perhaps I should also include that you should not comment on your own countries laws if you don't know them very well. Apparently the whole world knows about Germany's anti-nazi laws, but you don't. Also, you do realize that constitution of a country is it's highest law, correct? If there is no such law perhaps you should tell that to your judges, because they sure think it is.

      Your interpretation of anti Nazi laws
      I have made no interpretation of Germany's anti nazi laws, so you can stop right there. I said they look silly to those of us not under the influence of your countries laws. I have read and followed a fair number of cases involving those laws, including cases from google, ebay, and electronic arts. The outcome in each case, as someone who believes in freedom of speech and expression find quite silly, but it is your country, your laws, you do as you please over there.

      In addition, you can not claim you are innocent from libel by declaring you believed something is true. So the original posters comment as he made it is simply false. That's not how it works. There is a defense based on that, but only if you have proof that you were told that by a reputable source that the average person would reasonable expect to be an expert, authority, or to have checked beyond a reasonable doubt. In that case, then the libel suit would have to be filed against the originator of the libel, not a repeater of such.

      On the other hand, the anti-nazi laws are pretty simple in cases like this. Just google (if they aren't censored as well) over all the cases involving german anti-nazi laws involving not only their own citizens, but citizens and corporations of other countries. It's really not that difficult.

      Now please take your pompous eurotrash anti-American sentiments back to your own (censored) country.

    21. Re:Reading some comments by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      That's ok. We'll just watch as they "USA! USA!" themselves into irrelevance.

      Now, where did I put those Chinese of Dummies books? Time to prep for the next global overlord.

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    22. Re:Reading some comments by Tom · · Score: 1

      Vietnam wasn't a war, it was a police action -- big difference. Burying your head in the sand and pretending something didn't happen or doesn't exist doesn't make you better, it just raises a new generation of ignorant citizens.

      Calling things improperly is any better?

      Claiming Vietnam wasn't a war is amongst the worst insults I can imagine, towards the population of Vietnam as well as towards the US and allied soldiers who died their and their families. Police forces don't go into situations expecting to die or become life-long cripples. It can happen (and does), but it's nowhere nearly as likely as in a war.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    23. Re:Reading some comments by bogsnot · · Score: 1

      You should really brush up on your history a little bit, because the US was invaded. The white house burned down to the ground. We don't ban flags, symbols, or discussions about the subject. We don't ban the confederate flag, or other civil war era material. Vietnam wasn't a war, it was a police action -- big difference. Burying your head in the sand and pretending something didn't happen or doesn't exist doesn't make you better, it just raises a new generation of ignorant citizens.

      /[pedant]....speaking of brushing up on history... The US was not invaded. At the time, it was still internationally recognised as a British Colony. The US did not exist until after the shit-storm had settled. Vietnam WAS a war. KOREA was the Police Action. ....something about a new generation of ignorant citizens?..../[end pedant]

    24. Re:Reading some comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Each culture has it's history and fears, just live and let live.

      In the US you can show a zombie movie at 5pm for kids to watch, but if you show a nipple in a commercial you've got yourself a multi-million dollar law suit. And god forbig you use the f-word, it might corrupt the young ones minds!

      The US are quite clearly more afraid of sexuality than gruesome violence. Why? I don't know, but each country has a past and values coming from that past.

      Including Germany, and I respect their fear of Nazis, and won't tell them how to deal with it. I do personally fear nazis more than nipples though..

    25. Re:Reading some comments by skeeto · · Score: 1

      You seem to think that "freedom of speech" is the freedom to say or do anything.

      Except for the "do" part, which isn't speech, that's exactly what freedom of speech is. Even vile, icky speech must be defended, because someone else gets to decide what is vile. If it's "freedom to only say things that are not bad" that's just censorship.

    26. Re:Reading some comments by KingMotley · · Score: 1

      The white house was burned in 1814. Last I checked the revolutionary was for the US independence was back in 1776. It was officially recognized 1783.

      There is only one body in the United States that may declare war, and that's the congress. Congress made no declaration of war for Vietnam, which means it was a police action (for the US). There is a difference between a police action and a war. Congress declares war. The president can do police actions without congresses approval, but it limits his rights what he can do.

    27. Re:Reading some comments by KingMotley · · Score: 1

      The United States did not go to war in Vietnam. Only congress can declare war, and it had not. The president can make police actions without congresses approval, but it limits the amount of power he has. Therefore, the United States involvement in Vietnam was that of a police action, and you may call it an insult, but it is the truth. The difference is clear, and while you may think it diminishes the sacrifices the men and women in the military made, that is your own fault not understanding the difference.

    28. Re:Reading some comments by Cow+Jones · · Score: 1

      I find it odd that as open minded as that is, the great lengths the country has gone to hide it's own history.

      The purpose of these laws has nothing to do with hiding our country's history. If that were the goal, you wouldn't see WW2 memorials on every second public square, our children wouldn't spend years in history classes learning about the Third Reich, and you wouldn't get all those very regular documentations on public television stations. Most people are very well educated about this period, and they are constantly reminded of it, because every three weeks is the nth anniversary of some horrible event. And it takes about 15 minutes of talking to a foreign tourist, or to an American in a chat room, until the first remark about Nazis (Godwin's Law doesn't work so well over here).

      No, the laws were created/demanded by the allied forces during the occupation period, and they were kept because (reasonable) people are so ashamed of their country's past that they will accept a small limitation in their freedom of speech to prevent anything like this from happening again. The laws are also kept out of respect for the victims. Many, many people had to leave the country at that time, and by exterminating or exiling Jewish academics, scientists, and artists, the German and Austrian populations suffered a severe "brain drain". It was very hard to get these people to return, and to convince them that it was now a safe place for them again. People wearing swastika armbands or flying Nazi flags would have ruined these efforts at reconciliation.

      I'm from Austria, and while I'm a firm supporter of the freedom of speech (which *is* a guaranteed right here), I'll accept this restriction as necessary, at least as long as there are still death camp survivors living among us. I expect (or hope) that one day the laws won't be needed anymore, but in no way do I feel repressed by their continued existence.

      Every nation out there has their own skeletons in their closets, and I've accepted that I will have to live with them, and explain them to outsiders time and time again, even though my father wasn't even born when they were put there.

      CJ

      PS: As for the situation in Germany, this ban on video game artwork is ridiculous. The rules are much stricter in Germany, and some of my friends there simply buy their uncensored games and movies in Austria. Unfortunately, the nanny-state trend is getting stronger over here, too.

      --

      Ah, arrogance and stupidity, all in the same package. How efficient of you. -- Londo Mollari
    29. Re:Reading some comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember watching (sorry, my german is pretty poor, so my cousin was translating some), about some plot to make bras that secretly blow up...

      I'm sure I'm not the first person who read this and immediately thought "This bra bomb had better work, Nerdlinger!"

    30. Re:Reading some comments by Tom · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah, the semantics.

      Do you want a part of this delicious caviar souffle I made? Yes, I know it looks and smells like dog poop, but it really is a delicious caviar souffle - it says so right here on the label I attached to it.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    31. Re:Reading some comments by KingMotley · · Score: 1

      No thank you Tom.

      If you want to continue eating dog poop, that's fine. But if you put a label on it calling it caviar souffle and try to pass it on to others, don't whine when I point out that it isn't a souffle because souffles are made from egg whites.

    32. Re:Reading some comments by Tom · · Score: 1

      And the difference between my souffle/poop and your police-action/war is what, exactly?

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    33. Re:Reading some comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The differences are huge, but I suspect what you meant to ask was about their similarities. In both references, you called something by a name that has a precise meaning when it did not meet those conditions. I corrected both. Vietnam was not a war, and poop is not a souffle. Is that what you wanted to know?

    34. Re:Reading some comments by Tom · · Score: 1

      At least you know your dialectics.

      Apparently, we agree that the label attached to something does not change what the thing is. Calling dog poop a souffle doesn't make it one. Calling a war a police action doesn't make it one. I take from this that both you and me believe that the proper direction is the other way around - labels are attached to things, and which label is the correct one depends on the attributes of the thing in question. A brown, soft mass that came out of the aft end of a dog is not usually called a souffle.

      Now regarding Vietnam, there is a long list of attributes that it has in common with other things that we usually call a war. Definitions:

      War is a reciprocated, armed conflict, between two or more non-congruous entities, aimed at reorganising a subjectively designed, geo-politically desired result.

      Wikipedia
      or

      State of conflict, generally armed, between two or more entities.

      It is characterized by intentional violence on the part of large bodies of individuals organized and trained for that purpose

      Encyclopedia Britannica

      As I see it, the Vietnam "event" satisfies these conditions. Even the definition of Merriam-Webster:

      a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations

      Where you could hang a semantic argument about it not legally being a war due to lack of legally correct declaration, softens that part with "usually".

      Another item that, in my view, shatters the "police action" line is that police forces are usually considered to be internal, not international forces. More importantly, when sent internationally, a cooperation between the involved states is the usual norm. Calling a foreign military operation a "police action" is only ever used by those who believe that the rightful borders of their nation encompass the entire world, and indicates a mindset that believes the conquest of another country is the same thing as the pacification of an unrest in a troublesome city district.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  45. schnittberichte.com = PHP Slashdotted by Wisconsingod · · Score: 1

    Errors occur when trying to load any of the review pages at schnittberichte.com, PHP codes indicating too many connections

  46. Correction by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

    For example, the NPD (National Democratic Party) has had representatives in the national government for years now

    Sorry -- the NPD only has seats on parliaments at the state level, not representatives in federal parliament. My mistake. But I know from friends in Germany that they have been really fighting for greater national recognition, and lots of people are worried about it.

  47. Re:Dixie Flag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, it's fortunate that the "Stars and Bars" isn't often recognized as the flag of the Confederacy. Most people see the 1863 Navy Jack as the "Confederate flag" which mean I can use the Stars and Bars in a display of the Six Flags of Texas and not be attacked as "racist" for showing a piece of history.

  48. Fuck you! by PontifexPrimus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seriously, fuck you. And get back to me when you can say that on American television; until then, continue denying that anyone in America ever fucked.

    --
    -- Language is a virus from outer space.
    1. Re:Fuck you! by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      You can curse on American television. The what you are referring to is an entirely separate animal: daytime broadcast TV. Prohibiting certain things on daytime broadcast TV is very different from prohibiting them all the time, everywhere. It's even less of an issue consider the fact that most Americans get their TV from cable, satellite, or Internet.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    2. Re:Fuck you! by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      You can say that on television in the US. Dozens of channels do it every way. My favorite show, Penn and Teller's Bullshit has "bullshit" in the title and figures out some way to show topless women (almost) every episode. And it's on TV, in the US.

      There's a catch, though: if you want to say it over public airwaves, you have to either follow the FCC's guidelines, or pay their fines. That's not a "free speech" issue, that's a contractual arrangement you follow in exchange for being able to use public airwaves.

      If you're not using FCC airwaves (and every year, more and more cable-only channels are born), then say whatever the fucking shit you fucking want. You might get complaints from consumers and advertisers, but the government can't do dick about it.

    3. Re:Fuck you! by ioshhdflwuegfh · · Score: 1

      My favorite show, Penn and Teller's Bullshit has "bullshit" in the title and figures out some way to show topless women (almost) every episode. And it's on TV, in the US.

      Wow! I'm speechless.

    4. Re:Fuck you! by Beyond_GoodandEvil · · Score: 1

      Seriously, fuck you. And get back to me when you can say that on American television; until then, continue denying that anyone in America ever fucked.
      Ok, go watch an episode of the Sopranos. What, you meant public broadcast airwaves? Sorry, that's a different kettle of fish.

      --
      I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
    5. Re:Fuck you! by selven · · Score: 1

      Just because the US doesn't have freedom doesn't make it more okay to deny people freedom in Germany.

    6. Re:Fuck you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can say it, retard. Television companies are afraid to lose sponsors, so most of them censor "bad words."

  49. schnittberichte.com Slashdotted by SebaSOFT · · Score: 1

    No one will comment about this? Did I miss the comment?

    In PHP one should use pconnect() to connect to MySQL

    1. Re:schnittberichte.com Slashdotted by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Seeing that the php.net function reference doesn't know pconnect() I'd guess that using it to connect to MySQL wouldn't quite work.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    2. Re:schnittberichte.com Slashdotted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are actually very wrong on this one. You should _NEVER_ use mysql_pconnect() in production. NEVER EVER.

    3. Re:schnittberichte.com Slashdotted by SebaSOFT · · Score: 1

      I guess need to provide the chewed fish, not the fishing pole...

    4. Re:schnittberichte.com Slashdotted by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Ah. Well, I expected the function name to make sense as provided - after all, that's what the interpreter does.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
  50. Germany by Digital+Vomit · · Score: 1

    Funny...I thought the Nazis lost...

    --
    Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
  51. I gotta ask... by BenSchuarmer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    How far does this ban go? For example: the good Indiana Jones movies have a lot of Nazis and swastikas in them. Did they have to be editted for this ban?

    1. Re:I gotta ask... by gnasher719 · · Score: 2, Informative

      For example: the good Indiana Jones movies have a lot of Nazis and swastikas in them. Did they have to be editted for this ban?

      If you intend that your movie makes money on the German market, you plan ahead: The mirror image of the swastika is allowed, and most Americans wouldn't notice the difference, so you can use it freely and generously.

    2. Re:I gotta ask... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1


      How far does this ban go? For example: the good Indiana Jones movies have a lot of Nazis and swastikas in them. Did they have to be editted for this ban?

      No,

      they did ofc not get edited.

      As they where not used to promote the nazi ideals but as art.

      Same for Inglorious Basterds or Private Ryan, or other war movies like The Bridge of Arnhem.

      Same is for the video game, no one censored it, only the publisher withdrew it from the market for his own reasons. I played other video games with nazi symbols in them (Half Life Mods like, Day of Defeat, e.g.) never saw anyone claiming it is illegal ... but I have no idea regarding video games and nazi symbols.

      In fact there is no censoring in germany, the worst thing that can happen is that a state prosecutor makes a case and takes the publisher to court. Then the court would decide if Nazi symbols are used inapprobiated or not.

      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  52. Re:Instead of Empowering a Symbol... by sexconker · · Score: 1

    How is this a troll?

    Bush #2 looked like a moron because he was a terrible public speaker. He either was a moron, or was smart and a dick.

    Obama looks good and people love him, but all his actions are pointing to him being inept. He's too concerned with his own appearances (camera whore), and too afraid of his party turning on him after they lose seats in the midterm election.

    None of the promised changes have taken place, despite the "YES WE CAN!" rally cries of the plebes who support him. Instead, we have continued on the path of erosion of rights and freedoms, massive debt, public takeover of private sectors, lack of transparency, pork and lobbying, kindergarten-level discourse, and in general, shitty, shitty government.

    Obama is a politician through and through, not a leader.

  53. Cost comparisons. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Short of shooting anyone who looks remotely like a Hitler lover

    The German government some years back discovered that method wasn't very cost effective. Instead, they could load such people onto railway cars, and systematically ship them to locations with hardware designed to eliminate them in a quick, efficient manner.

    1. Re:Cost comparisons. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shooting them worked for the soviets. I'd say Stalin was a very efficient killer.

  54. States by dereference · · Score: 1

    Could California declare "no more swastikas" and force Activision to edit California editions of Wolfenstein, or would the U.S. overrule that decision?

    I'm not sure how serious you were, but (sorry in advance for a car analogy) California already requires stricter emissions rules than most other states, and car makers of all kinds (US and imports) must comply in order to have their cars sold in that state.

    Unless a state law is somehow challenged and found to be unconstitutional, it would stand. One would guess that the display of swastikas would be protected speech (and thus laws against it unconstitutional). However, given the attention to "hate crimes" apparently gaining a lot of focus, you never know.

    1. Re:States by Comboman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      One would guess that the display of swastikas would be protected speech (and thus laws against it unconstitutional). However, given the attention to "hate crimes" apparently gaining a lot of focus, you never know.

      Hate crime laws are (at least supposed to) look at the intent of the speech rather than it's form (i.e. It's OK to put swastikas in your video game; it's not OK to spray paint one on your local synagogue).

      --
      Support Right To Repair Legislation.
    2. Re:States by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>Hate crime laws are (at least supposed to) look at the intent of the speech

      Nice defense of a law that should not exist. And here's why it should not exist - "I think it's clear his intent was defamation of character. That's why I jailed by Democrat opponent (and his supporters) after I won the 2020 election. It was clearly hate speech." - future President Napoleon the 10th. No government should ever have the power to take-away freedom so easily.

      Also the Hate Speech law is no better than the Alien and Sedition Acts of the 1790s. It's the same thing just wearing a different sheep's clothing. It's also a power that was never granted to Congress.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    3. Re:States by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      You missed the point. The hate crime laws require an actual crime be committed. Then, there are different sentencing rules if the intent was to harm more than just the one person harmed (burning a cross in someone's yard could violate trespassing, littering, criminal mischief, unattended fire, and about 50 other laws, but the intent of it isn't just against the person at that place, but all others of the same type. It's a form of terrorism. Targeting people because of their class, and acting in a manner that "sends a message" to others in that class. You can't jail someone that didn't do anything. They have to have committed a real crime before you can invoke hate crime rules.

    4. Re:States by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      Oh. Well thanks for the detailed explanation of why the legal equivalent of muzzling a person (as if he were a slave instead of a freeman) is not an abridgment of liberty.

      - "I merely hid the weapon. I did not fire it." - Lya of the Nox
      - "Ah. Pretty fine line you didn't cross." - Captain Carter
      - "Yes..... it is."

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    5. Re:States by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Oh. Well thanks for the detailed explanation of why the legal equivalent of muzzling a person (as if he were a slave instead of a freeman) is not an abridgment of liberty.

      Hate crime laws require a crime already be committed. Period. There is no hate crime that is a crime if there wasn't "hate" involved. So why are you protecting criminal terrorists?

    6. Re:States by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      Because rights are an innate quality of human beings that can not be revoked. That means having ownership of your mouth and saying whatever you want, is universal, and applies whether you are an honest citizen, or a thief.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    7. Re:States by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I don't even understand what you are talking about. You think terrorism is ok? You think that purposefully committing violent crimes in extra-violent ways with statments that others like that will also be tareted and executed is no different than an accidental death? The issue is that almost all crimes take intent into consideration. Purposeful harm because of an atrribute of a person is considered a factor in intent. That's all "hate crime" is about. You examine the intent, as is done in just about all crimes currently. There is nothing done differently, other than, if the intent meets a specific set of parameters, there may be different penalties. There's nothing against saying anything, and what you say will make no difference in whether or not you are arrested.

  55. Question... by Povno · · Score: 1

    Does anyone know if the German laws make exceptions based on religious beliefs?

    Genuine curiosity.

    --
    sudo apt-get lost
    1. Re:Question... by 3247 · · Score: 1

      Does anyone know if the German laws make exceptions based on religious beliefs?.

      The law does not ban the use of the swastika per se but the use of the symbols of counter-constitutinal organisations.

      If you're using a swastika it in a religious context, you're technically not using a symbol that identifies such an organisation but a symbol identifying religious beliefs. However, you may still get into trouble because nearly everyone will think you're a nazi.

      --
      Claus
  56. Get a clue about german law first! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The fact that activision recalls the game does _not_ mean it would be censored otherwise. It just means Activision doesn't want to get bad press or other kinds of trouble. Reading Â86 of the German StGB, it is pretty clear that not every case of showing a swastika constitutes a crime. On the contrary, only its use for propaganda is illegal (simplifying somewhat here). Whether this is the case is at least questionable. IANAL

  57. ITT: by Khamura · · Score: 1

    The usual "lol germany u suck 4 censurship nazi symbols r ok!!!1!" kneejerk reaction by non-Germans.

    --
    Graduate of the LeRoy Funkified Badass School of Soul.
  58. Re:Instead of Empowering a Symbol... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Karma Whore

  59. When will they get over it? by Theovon · · Score: 1

    Millions of innocent jews and others were tortured and killed by members of the Nazi party. It was evil, and it should be condemned.

    But it happened. It's part of reality, and it's something we should learn from. Denying its existence (or acknowledging it in a way) by censoring it seems counterproductive to me. Let's no stick our heads in the sand. There are lots of "symbols of evil" that the Germans do not ban. People see them and are told they represent evil, and they can be taught a lesson about evil.

    And let's not forget that the swastika was an ancient Hindu religious symbol that had very positive connotations. People should be taught its original meaning and how the Nazis desecrated it.

    WWII happened in the 1940's. The Germans are good people. As a culture, they have always been inventive and industrious. And, like every other nation on earth, they have a sense of superiority. And a long time ago, some people took that sense of superiority too far. In a very Microsoft-like way, they dealt with their "competitors" by crushing them, rather than trying to a better job. (Note that I don't think Microsoft are nearly as evil as the Nazis. Bill Gates is excessively competitive, but he's also a philanthropist and deserves recognition for it.) The Germans and everyone else in the world have to grow up and get past this fear of the past.

    If you're a white American, and your ancestors owned slaves, should you be ashamed of yourself? No. You can be ashamed of your ancestors, and you can be ashamed of all of the cruelty and torture that went along with it. But you yourself know that slavery was wrong. You're not responsible for it. You can get past it without pretending it didn't happen.

    But that's just my opinion.

  60. Nazi germany by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It really is sad to see soo many modern countries imposing nonsense on their people. It won't change history or the seemingly never ending stream of Nazi jokes directed at our German friends.

    If a hot German girl asks if you want to take a shower with her I would think twice about accepting.

  61. IANAL but... by denzacar · · Score: 1

    Why don't you just outlaw people planning to kill other people?

    I believe that is called something like "Conspiracy to commit murder", and I do believe that generally that is considered illegal.

    The Swastika didn't kill anyone.

    Actually, German law doesn't accuse swastika of any crimes, nor does it ban the symbol outright.
    But it does ban the use of swastika as a symbol of the Nazi Party.

    Considering their 20th century history, the law is quite sensible.
    It is people who lack the actual knowledge of the law that are creating issues, like the cases where they've equated it's use as a anti-Nazi symbol to that of a Nazi symbol. (see link above)

    But hey...
    At least they didn't ban snow globes or made the entire world take of their shoes before they are allowed to enter the plane. Right?

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  62. Absolutely..... by p.rican · · Score: 1

    brilliant response. You, my friend, are a word-smith.

    --

    /. --"Demented and sad....but social" -Judd Nelson

  63. 90% of Germans would agree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... but unfortunately it is nearly impossible to remove something that stupid from our
    Grundgesetz (especially since it at a different place states "Zensur findet nicht statt" (there is no censorship). No politician will even try out of fear to be denounced as a Nazi.

    On the other hand, we have got a lot more pressing concerns like the tendency to introduce more and more oppressive and anti freedom laws in the name of fighting against terror and child porn. Yes, the German government isn't any better in that respect than the US or UK. And the general German populace doesn't care either, just like in the US and UK.

  64. A different perspective please. by burni2 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Now having heard that social progressives are more into censorship .. than others etc..

    I want to state some facts about germany and the background, and in the end my own opinion:

    The swastika, also the posing in the public
    doing the "Nazi salute", and public saying of "Heil Hitler" with a non-documentary or historic background are prohibitted.

    If you do a historic documentation about the NAZIs the use of the Swastika is allowed.

    But also building up organizitions and naming them
    after their Nazi counterparts is prohibitted,

    like
    - "NSDAP" the Party also known as the "NAZI"-party
    - "HJ" (Young Hitlericans(male))
    - "BDM" (Young Hitlericans(female)
    - "SS" (Sturm Staffel)

    or stating that the holocaust never happend,
    also known as "Holocaust Luege" - holocaust lie.

    b.) Are there Nazis still in Germany active ?

    Yes, they are. In Germany, we have two (bigger) extreme right wing parties:

    - NPD (Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands)
    (nationaldemocratic party germany)
    - REP (Republikaner :: Republicans)

    The NPD has some MPs in east german non-federal parliaments. Some days ago they also managed to reenter one of the parliaments in a row.

    That's a premiere because anytime else they entered a parliament they were out on the next election. Mostly because their members had stolen
    computers, office equipment and embezzled money for themselves(it was meant for covering expenses due to political work).

    Funny isn't it, for a party which stands for law and order, more order than law I guess.

    So these people mostly turn out to be total boneheads, the elitebrain leaders within those parties are few.

    But they are connected and involved to non-offical/underground/forbidden organizations like the "Freie Kameradschaften"

    sometimes those organizations gather weapons
    and explosives, for terrorist acts.

    The members of these "gangs" are often young and violent, they gather in flashmobs and have
    hobbies like beating up foreigners, just for being foreign, sometimes they kill, or
    hunt their prey in such a threatening way that the hunted people try to get into a safehouse by kicking in a glass window, accidently cutting themselves and bleeding to death.

    If you have black, dark skin or look like a gipsy
    you can end up as their prey, but sometimes because you look funny or do not speak german.

    And if you are jewish they demolish your property or paint graffities like "SS" or "Jude verrecke"
    (this means Jew die, in an extreme unpleasant way)
    onto your property, synagogues and graveyards.

    And all this, happens in germany still, mostly
    in eastern germany - there are dangerous hotspots
    where this happens, outside of these hotspots
    it's mostly safe.

    The prohibitions are instated to battle those
    extreme right parties.

    Please keep this in mind, when discussing
    those NAZI-topics.

    To get things into the right perspective, for germany those violent acts are _not_ common,
    most foreign visitors describe germany as a
    "clean and friendly country", and to be clear most of my fellow citizens are no NAZIs and won't do any harm.

    But recent studies suggest 10 percent of the allowed voters can imagine themselves to vote
    for extreme right parties.

    So most of us try that those new Nazis will not ever rise up again, as it happend in '33.

    My personal opinion about this topic is:

    I think it's wrong that the holocaust-lie is prosecuted by law, because I want to know what
    idiot I face from the beginning.

    Perhaps after my lines below you can imagine why this is a very sensitive spot in our history even today.

    Six Million people dead - selected to live or to die, after they left the train on the basis of their condition. Those who could do work, or were technically skilled were forced to work very low on food, with no medical support, so it was death by work. Those who were weak - children, elderly

    1. Re:A different perspective please. by VAXcat · · Score: 1

      like - "NSDAP" the Party also known as the "NAZI"-party - "HJ" (Young Hitlericans(male)) - "BDM" (Young Hitlericans(female) - "SS" (Sturm Staffel) The SS were the Schutzstaffel, German for "Protective Echelon". Perhaps you were thinking of the Sturmabtielung, the "Storm Detachment" - the brownshirted Storm Troopers from the early days.

      --
      There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
    2. Re:A different perspective please. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      /thread.

    3. Re:A different perspective please. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      b.) Are there Nazis still in Germany active ?

      Yes, they are. In Germany, we have two (bigger) extreme right wing parties:

      - NPD (Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands)
      (nationaldemocratic party germany)
      - REP (Republikaner :: Republicans)

      We have Republicans here in the US too!

    4. Re:A different perspective please. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      blah, you didint mention that the ww2 was simply the battle betveen different SOCIALIST movements.
      The german national socialist against russian socialists (bolsheviks [created after splitting up the main SOCIALIST movement in russia - mensheviks (smaller - menshe) and bolsheviks (bigger - bolshe), that one got renaimed afterwards the "communists"], and us, english and french socialism.

      And swastika has nothing to do with national socialism. It is at least 10 000 years old (if not older) symbol of fertility and sun energy.

  65. militant democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have to understand the ban of nazi symbols in the context of the so called
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streitbare_Demokratie. The basic law has ethernal (= unchangeable) sections which guarantees all basic rights (like freedom of speech). But it also has provisions stating that these freedoms can be removed in case someone is looking to abolish those freedoms.

    Concerning the allegation of denying Nazi history by some people here - LEARN MORE about the curriculum at german schools! (Google it!) If you did that you would understand that this is simply NOT true.

  66. Could a Deutschedotter do a Q&D translation... by The+Ultimate+Fartkno · · Score: 1

    ...of the schnittberichte article? I can get the basic gist of what's going on (blood textures, exploding heads, Nazi symbols and whatnot) but my German absolutely sucks and I know I'm missing a million things.

  67. what a mess this law must be by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

    How does one even define a swastika fully ? It is inherent in any four square objects that meet, it must be possible to pick out swastika-like features from an aerial map of any German city. And what about stylizations like three-legged Isle of Man swastikas or curvy swastikas or rainbow-colored swastikas for gay nazi pride. I just don't see how the law can be properly enforced. Or is there a EuroNorm swastika ?

    --
    Nullius in verba
  68. Please be accurate: not Germany is censoring. by elFisico · · Score: 1

    Activision is. And they have good reasons to do so: risk management. Yes, they could try and argue that the use of Nazi symbols is artistic and thus exempted from the verbot. But there remains a significant risk that the game might still be verboten, so they create a toned-down version for the german market to avoid an R-rating (which they would also get for extreme violence and splatter elements and which would mean no public advertising of the game).

    Germany doesn't ban Nazi symbols in all cases, glorious basterds had no problem using them. But it does ban them when there is a chance that they are used to strengthen the elements that want to revive the thousand-year-reich...

  69. Re:Hitler by GargamelSpaceman · · Score: 1

    Hitler was but a spectre projected into this dimension by his moustache.

    --
    ...
  70. No such thing as inalienable rights by fantomas · · Score: 1

    All rights are socially constructed and agreed by a community, there are no such things as inalienable rights. They are not laws of physics/nature. Try demanding your right to life in a pool full of hungry sharks or on the edge of a live volcano and see if the sharks or the volcano agree to uphold your rights out of philosophical principle.

    Specific societies/communities/countries may declare that within their authority there are rights that they consider inalienable/ religious/sacred/ not open for debate but step beyond that society and you will find this is no longer true.

    Try telling a US judge that you come from a land of cannibals so it's your inalienable right to hunt down and eat other humans. I'm sure they would tell you "in your place maybe but not in our country, pal!"

    Maybe there are beliefs you adhere to regardless of what other people think but alienable rights - philosophical rights of others that all humans, sharks, volcanos, gas giants etc must adhere to? I don't think this is so.

  71. ...and in other places? by phorm · · Score: 1

    How about the Indiana Jones movies, etc. Are those also banned in German as well then (or edited)?
    Death to Smoochy?
    Anything else with that particular symbol (whether glorifying it or opposing it)?

    1. Re:...and in other places? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anything else with that particular symbol (whether glorifying it or opposing it)?

      In general, the Nazi swastika can be quite commonly seen in Germany in situations where it is clear that they are not meant to glorify national socialism. For example, history books, movies, TV reports etc.

    2. Re:...and in other places? by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      In general, the Nazi swastika can be quite commonly seen in Germany in situations where it is clear that they are not meant to glorify national socialism. For example, history books, movies, TV reports etc.

      ...Computer games where the protagonist kills Nazis like the dogs they are.

  72. Inglorious Basterds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what I want to know is, with Germany's swastika ban, how did a film like Inglorious Basterds get to do filming in Germany with all of those swastikas?

  73. Irrelevant. by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

    Nobody with even a tiny bit of clue orders the censored version anyway.

    As with all old "cut/censored" games and even movies here in Germany, you usually either order a uncut version from somewhere else (Austria, UK, etc.), there is a patch to restore cut content, or you simply pull a English version off the net. Sometimes people even recombine a English game with German speech and text.

    Game developers are aware of that, and very often, even in German versions, the Swastika-Files are still there, and you just have to patch the EXE or something similarly small.

    So the whole thing is a non-issue here.

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  74. Re:Dixie Flag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Explain that to the French.

  75. It could be worst by rimugu · · Score: 1

    They could be banning burcas or big crosses, just because they are sons of the "revolution".
    Even if the revolution killed more than any burca or big cross ever has.

  76. My German video game experience by CODiNE · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Earlier this year while preparing for a move I put some old Lucas Arts games up for sale on eBay.

    Day of the Tentacle, Sam and Max, Indiana Jones, etc...

    Well the weird thing was how the Indiana Jones auctions took off and I started getting all these international bids on it. It complicated things for me since I wasn't familiar with international shipping but anyways, I checked and they were all German. HUH! Then I realized for the first time that Indiana Jones must be completely banned in Germany.

    Of course with Kingdom of the Crystal Skulls it really IS for their best that it remain banned...

    --
    Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
    1. Re:My German video game experience by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Absolutely not. The Indiana Jones games were very well-sold here in Germany, especially together with the Bestseller Games magazine.
      This was the way I've got to play "The Fate of Atlantis" in first place.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    2. Re:My German video game experience by CODiNE · · Score: 1

      So hey I'm curious, if Wolfenstein had to be censored then how does anything Indiana Jones get sold in Germany? Do they get a pass since it's anti-Nazi? How's it different than Wolfenstein? And the movies, do they get censored?

      --
      Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
    3. Re:My German video game experience by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      The whole thing is a bit strange. The first id 3d shooter - Wolfenstein 3D - was seizured two years after it came out, selling of the game was forbidden.
      Spear of Destiny, though, was just forbidden to sold openly, to minors, and to advertise for (like porn), but years after it came out, although the difference between the original Wolfenstein 3D and Spear of Destiny is only minor.

      The German versions of Indiana Jones games were modified, all swastika was deleted from the games.
      The Indiana Jones movies weren't censored at all, as far as I remember, so it must be okay in the historical context of the movies, but it seems to be different for video games.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  77. downfall parody by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Downfall of Grammar
    www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8fbrUjjivw

  78. News at 11 by rhinokitty · · Score: 1

    German government becomes Fascist in trying to prevent a resurgence of Fascism.

    Fascism is trotted out as a way to avoid rational dialog once again in a Slashdot forum (fascism, fascism, fascism).

    News at 11.

  79. Re:Dixie Flag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yo mean that everione that wore a Swastika agreed with national SOCIALISM?

  80. ONE NAZI, TWO NAZIS <-- NO APOSTROPHE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's up with people writing Nazi's instead of Nazis?

  81. pre-requisite mitchell & webb sketch by DeskLazer · · Score: 1
  82. Giving the symbols power? by stilleon · · Score: 1

    By banning such symbols, doesn't this give them more power? I mean, a symbol, or a book, or a movie have no power in themselves, only if we fear them do they have power over us. By banning them, the government is telling us to fear them. In the case of the swastika, neo-nazis must feel empowered that their symbol is so feared. Remember "Day of the Dove" from the original Star Trek series? Until the Klingons and Feds decided not to empower the alien entity with their hatred, they were able to laugh at it and make it go away.

  83. Re:Instead of Empowering a Symbol... by Schnoogs · · Score: 0

    Anonymity whore ;)

  84. A symbol is never just a graffiti by UBfusion · · Score: 1

    600+ comments on /. and I don't see any deep analysis. Hundreds of philosophical/political/religious/etc books have been written on signs and symbols (even the Dan Brown novels in essence are about symbols) and since I don't have the time to read them all, I am not convinced on some issues. I'd certainly like a linguist or a semantics expert to jump in the discussion, play the game and clarify the following issues:

    1. Do symbols have power? Can they affect human behaviour? Can they poison children's/teenagers' souls? Should parents, ministries or Governments be worried on the circulation and use of symbols?

    2. What precisely is the power of symbols due to? Why do state and interpersonal laws give them such importance?

    3. Is the depiction of the swastika in the game pro or against fascism?

    4. Is the killing of Nazis in a computer game (or a movie) a true punishment or an attempt to victimize them? Especially if the game is not accompanied by a declaration of the authors stating that "all actions against Nazis depicted in this game are meant to educate the player against fascism and violence and pro democracy and peace"?

    5. When bad Nazis (or serial murders or any criminals) appear in a Hollywood movie played by celebrities, what is the probability of an audience member considering them as heroes or models for their own lives? One in a thousand? One in a million?

    6. Would you make love to a girl/boy having a swastika tattoo?

    I know I may be considered just a troll, but IMHO nothing is as simple or innocent as it seems. And if I had kids, I'd certainly monitor what games they play on their PCs.