Displaying "Offensive" Material

[Jason Tandro]

Okay, so in my high school days I was pretty belligerent about the Confederate Flag.

First, I'm originally from the North, but I had to move south where this symbol is shown a lot.

Second, I did believe that it was an open sign of somebody's desire to see the good old days of slavery and equated it with racism.

But as I've grown up and mellowed out somewhat I've realized that, while I may personally find the symbol distasteful, it does not mean that I have the right to presume the person displaying it to have any motivation other than to respect his/her heritage.

This kind of thing crops up a lot. Of course the most notorious symbol in humanity is probably the Nazi Swaztika, but with the Neo-Nazi movement there is a lower tolerance for that. I often made that argument when debunking the "Heritage not Hate" argument, but it still makes me think.

As a nation that has freedom of speech, it's not our place to make the call of what can and can't be displayed. As a matter of fact my friend got suspended for wearing clothes with the flag (which the school called gang attire) and two other boys at a local school are in the midst of a legal battle because they displayed the flag on the back of their trucks.

So this debate is not over whether these symbols carry innate offensive nature... they do, end of story. The question is whether we should ban the display of such things or, as I believe, let them be as part of "Freedom of Speech".

[Yet One More Idiot]

I've seen something similar happen on occasion over here in England, Jason. During the World Cup 2006, a lot of homes and businesses across England were displaying the St. George's Cross (the flag of England) to support our nation's attempt to win the World Cup.

However, it seems that this is just about the only time that it's allowed to be flown by citizens these days. Just a few weeks before that World Cup kicked off, I had seen an article in one newspaper about some man who had chosen to fly the English flag from a pole attached to the side of his house. Somebody - a neighbour, apparently - complained, it seems, as the police came along and TOLD HIM TO TAKE IT DOWN, with some B/S excuse that it might incite racial hatred and is considered offensive.

OK...how can flying the nation's flag, within its own nation, ever be offensive?

Other cases of this have occurred too, of various homeowners being told to remove England flags flying from their homes, and sometimes businesses prominently displaying it have been told to take it down too. But it's okay to fly a Union Flag wherever you bloody like, they just don't like the England flag.

O, and I should add, in Scotland there is no problem with flying the Scottish flag. In Wales, there is no problem with anyone wishing to fly the Welsh flag. And in Northern Ireland, it's quite alright to fly the Northern Irish flag. But you'd better not try to fly the English flag in England, or you'll be branded a hatemonger and a racist, it seems...

[psychokind]

I, personnally, think we shouldn't ban any kind of symbol. on the other hand, the nazi flag would be promoted hardcorely by our nazis in germany, and other nations would use this to pressure us financially/economically (especially Israel and the US).

[EverPhoenix]

im not sure if they should be banned, personally. but if they do carry an innate offensive nature (even to certain groups of individuals, within reason) then one should be cautious about displaying the symbol in public.

[Freedan]

Not banned, just used with some common sense.

The problem with things like the Confederate flag is that they're often misused by certain people to represent the absolute extreme of something, usually ending up with the context being changed completely.

The flag came from a time and a place where slavery was practiced. Some people (the Klan, for example) figure that because of that, it's ok to use it to represent white superiority. But the flag, like so many other things, is just a symbol, and the only value a symbol has is the one an individual assigns to it.

The Klan also burns crosses. No one is calling for a ban on crosses (except those PC folks who hate Christmas and want Nativity scene displays torn down).

Obviously, some common sense is needed; if you live in a mostly Black part of town, don't go proudly waving your Confederate flag around. But just because some people (even a large group) are offended by something doesn't necessarily mean it should be banned.

"But Freedan, does that mean we should let people display Swastikas?"

Excellent question, theoretical inquirer.

I'd say no. And here's why:

I know that goes against what I just said, but in the case of the Swastika, most people aren't aware of its other meaning. Hitler's Swastika stood for the exact opposite of its Hindu and Buddhist meanings. Originally, it meant "love, mercy, strength", and so on. But in the last 70 years, people generally only see it as meaning one thing (just one more thing Hitler ruined for everyone, along with tiny mustaches and the name "Adolf"). You'll have a hell of a time convincing people otherwise if you try to explain that one to them.

That particular symbol has such a universally negative reputation now, that it actually has the potential to start riots if it's displayed. That one is best left banned, unless used for religious purposes like it's supposed to be.

[psychokind]

Freedan, the Dark Knight wrote:

I know that goes against what I just said, but in the case of the Swastika, most people aren't aware of its other meaning. Hitler's Swastika stood for the exact opposite of its Hindu and Buddhist meanings. Originally, it meant "love, mercy, strength", and so on. But in the last 70 years, people generally only see it as meaning one thing (just one more thing Hitler ruined for everyone, along with tiny mustaches and the name "Adolf"). You'll have a hell of a time convincing people otherwise if you try to explain that one to them. That particular symbol has such a universally negative reputation now, that it actually has the potential to start riots if it's displayed. That one is best left banned, unless used for religious purposes like it's supposed to be.

the swastika is a very very old symbol with dozens of meanings, in your particular case from India (hinduism/buddhism) it means dawn, death, misfortune, ending of life. the positive one goes the other way round, hitler made a mistake here

[Freedan]

http://www.religionfacts.com/buddhism/symbols/swastika.htm

It was my understanding that the Buddhist meaning of the swastika was

Quote:

the swastika signifies auspiciousness and good fortune as well as the Buddha's footprints and the Buddha's heart.

And it was corrupted from there to represent racial purity.

[inferiare]

Freedan, the Dark Knight wrote:

http://www.religionfacts.com/buddhism/symbols/swastika.htm It was my understanding that the Buddhist meaning of the swastika was Quote: the swastika signifies auspiciousness and good fortune as well as the Buddha's footprints and the Buddha's heart. And it was corrupted from there to represent racial purity.

It depends on the way that it's facing. There's two different facings. One is to the left, the other is to the right.

[Freedan]

Doing a little research, it seems Hitler used a "Sauwastika", the right-facing version (which, incidentally, is rarely used even within religious contexts). The actual swastika still has a positive meaning.

I had a point in there somewhere; that being that most people are not aware of the difference, and see the swastika (that is, the good one) as being offensive. Tensions can run high over that symbol, so I'm standing by my claim that it's best to leave the symbol out of the mix outside of religious use, where the difference is known.