"Second Life does not allow Nazi iconography as it broadly offensive."

Linden Lab.

It's a private business.

I can't tack up pictures of the Swastika at the local grocery store on their bulletin board just because they allow me to post an ad for the car I am selling.

Private business - not the real world. Private businesses have other considerations, such as sales and profitablity, not to mention, not wanting to be labeled as pro-Nazi or what not by the media.

Well I'm glad to see you have such a high opinion of SL. However, I doubt this thread was made to debate the purpose of opening up a Holocaust History Museum. Even so, LL has decided that it is in their best interest to not allow Nazi symbols. Whether or not other games allow it is beside the point.

I wouldn't want to see a KKK rally, history museum, or whatever in SL. The feeling such display can evoke and the potential for abuse is large enough that LL doesn't feel it's worth it.

On your american flag comments. Regardless of your views on America or whatever, saying the American flag can be veiwed just as offensive as the swashtika doesn't work. We could go into viturally every single nation, religion, or whatever on the planet and find some atrocity that would offend someone. Even in Iraq, they were being killed before America arrived and even when we did get their, we didn't set out to exterminate all Iraqi's like, say, Hitler against the Jews or Sadam versuses certain tribes.

Also, the Nazi party was just that, a party. The US is a nation. You could fly the German nation's flag http://www2c.ac-lille.fr/ribot/german-flag.gif all over your property if you wanted too just as you could fly an American flag.

You've lost me on that one I am afraid, could you expand on what you mean here?
Well, this thread was made to ask if ANY Nazi imagery was acceptable in SL. That would include educational and artistic references.
I don't know that I agree with you here fully. If you hide it under the rug, people forget. Again, intent. I would not be against a museum highlighting the atrocities of the KKK or the Nazis for educational purposes, although, as with Nazi imagery, LL would probably still say no, even if it was glaringly obvious it wasn't intended to incite or anger people.

In addition, even though it's illegal to display Nazi Iconography in Germany, some of the concentrations camps, complete with ovens, gas chambers, Nazi slogans, Swastikas, and all, are now museums.
I think you may have me confused with Kyrah here. I didn't say that the US flag represents the same thing a Nazi flag, or anything close to it. However, the genocide carried out against millions of Native Americans before and after the inception of the US as a sovereign nation is pretty horrific. I think sometimes we are numbed a bit when it comes to that - what with growing up playing "Cowboys and Indians", watching Cowboy movies, and the like. Anyway you slice it, it's a dark chapter of American history which still goes on to some extent, to this day.
The Nazi flag WAS Germany's flag for a time.

Nobody's claiming the right to paint a swastika on your neighbor's door or burn a cross on their lawn. I'm contending that:
1) Everything is relative. People should be judged based on intent. They usualy are in RL law.
2) If it's on a hidden island, nobody will see it. This means anyone that you couldnt possibly be offended by it. Consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want as long as they are not harming anyone.
3) SL is increasingly becoming a professional content development platform. Depictions of the KKK, Nazis, or whatever's the demon in your cultural, regional and temporal frame of reference, should be allowed in the same context as they appear on mainstream media, i.e., in a way that makes it very clear that it's not promoting hateful ideologies. It should damn well be possible to shoot a documentary on racism in SL or make a ww2-themed game that includes depictions of KKK members and Nazis in full regalia.

I tend to agree with you Eggy. However, because of the intent issue, I think LL is taking the easy, safe way out on this.

Yeah I got your post confused with Kyrah's sorry. Even though the Nazi Flag became Germanies flag for a while, it was only due to the illegal manner in which Hitler assumed absolute power that allowed him to do so. The swashtika still remained a party symbol though Hitler wanted it to become representitive of Germany itself.

I'm quite aware of the atrocites america has commited throughout it's history. The invasion of Indian territory, though not quite genocide, was a horrific display of the evils of expansionism, and the general lack of regard for your fellow man. Of course the passage of time, and further exploits, both good and bad, as well as the generaly non-caring attitude of society numbs the impact of such events down over time.

I'm not saying history should be denied. But I see no need for such imagery in SL. Besides if the history channel has it's way. The memory of WWII is probably assured for the next thousand years or so. ;P

My comment, specifically, was that the usage of the symbology should be what is used to decide what is permissible and not. I was very clear to point out that if someone was trying to irritate or offend others, it should not be allowed. This is, of course, what the Impeach Bush signs are designed to do -- irritate and offend. They are not designed to call for the legal removal of a head of state, only to obscure views of SL and extort money.

I cited situations where Nazi symbolgoy has been used and accepted wholeheartedly, in art and literature and film. So don't come in here preaching that I don't understand the difference, and that I shouldn't be surfing the net. Read my words before making such scathing remarks.


Edit: Because it's sometimes fun to stir up fresh cans of worms, here's some food for thought. The national socialist party of Germany was responsible for bringing them from hyper-depression into fruition as a superpower in a very short period of time. The kind of poverty that the 1930s Great Depression of USA pales in comparison against was turned on its ear by uniting Germans under a patriotic frenzy and yes, going to war. War has often been the 'easy out' to slip out from under economic slumps.
We may find the culture deplorable from our point of view, but to simply dismiss everything the Nazi party did as hateful is ignorant. Germany was crushed after World War I, they had nothing. It was purely natural that a nation left in such a state, with such a proud history, would rally together and begin (once again) viewing themselves as superior.

Yet all of these details of history are merely going to fall through the cracks of ignorance if, on every medium, people cry foul and demand that no references to nazism is permitted.

Am I an advocator of Nazism? No. But I'm willing to at least look into the past and see what could cause a nation to commit such acts that the world views as unthinkable.
I suppose it's easier for most people to just dismiss it as Germany becoming a den of evil overnight and setting out to slaughter all Jews.

Much in the same way, the more familiar Christian cross was hijacked by the Klan. These kind of graphic borrowings always happen - graphic artists rarely form militant political parties, in my experience.

bullseye

When I started SL last February there was a big controversy about a woman that had a concentration camp with starving Jewish prisoners in it. From what I remember LL finally made her remove it. I think that this is when LL adopted a policy on Nazi iconography.

You know, many SL users are African-American, and to them Confederate symbolism is a bit more than merely "offensive". It reminds them of an era when their fellow citizens considered them less than human, treated them as property, an era that lasted centuries and crossed national boundaries.

In addition, many SL users have ancestors who fought to preserve the Union - and if they're like me, they could well be deeply offended by Confederate imagery. It represents the attempt to rive a great nation, to destroy American democracy and the U.S.A. as we know it (good and bad). In just one example, we didn't start saying "the United States is..." until *after* the Civil War. Before that we said "the United States are...."

The cop-out that it means "state's rights" isn't one that I buy. It means racism and opression to me and tens of millions of Americans.

Does that mean that I think all Confederate imagery should be banned, in real life or SL? No, of course not. Part of democracy, of freedom, heck, of just being an adult, is dealing with seeing things you find offensive. I don't want my world filtered, even though it might make it an easier and more pleasant one. I don't want it filtered for me because I fear what someone might do who filters it for someone else.

That's really the issue here, not whether or not a swastika is offensive, but whether we can be eternally satisfied that Linden Labs will never censor anything else on the grid. This opens a door we don't want to enter, believe me.

Even though this post is rediculious. It does show a certain level of intelligence across our wonderful SL community. you say NAZI an everyone is in a up roar. First off Nazi-ism isn't much more than a form of socialism/ facism that we tolerate on a daily basis around the world. But becuase of its Noteriety in History an everyones Ignorance of fact, an their preconcieved notions of truth, people get offended.
Now if you mention Cambodia an Pol Pot , Khmer Rouge,an 1975. Most people here would have no clue what you are talking about let alone be offended. Why. Ignorance. It wasn't a huge issue world wide so rarely is it in the history books. Some might argue the fact that Hitler an is Regime killed an estimated 6million Jews Christians an various other religious groups as well as the social outcast of the time ( Homosexuals, Mental/physically handicapped) Where as Pol Pot an the Khmer Rouge only killed an starved to death 2 million Cambodians. Roughly 30% of Cambodias populations

My arguement for them would be so its a numbers game an not really a difference in Idealogy?

you only find it wrong an offensive becuase it was so many or becuase you dont believe in his idealogy? If you believe in free health care, social programs, an the re-distribution of wealth Then you are alligned with Hitler an the Nazi beliefs more than you might realize.
Well maybe the Killing Fields is to small of an issue for you to understand where im going with this.
lets try Rwanda 1994 Hutus an Tutsi. This is a Little more recent an if you are legally old enough to play second life then you were of a literate age when this happened. All out Genocide that was not triggered over night, an was planned for years in advance. Want to talk numbers try 934,000 dead in only 100 days.
Hitler had years an years to kill before anyone stopped him. thats why the estimated deaths are so high. Hutus only had 100 days.

If i was to fly a Picture of the Generals leading that genocide or the images pasted on T shirts no one we be offended becuase they are completely passive an ignorant about it.

One my deduce it is because the Cambodians an Tusti are of Asian an African decent an therefore the major populious have a disconnect from them. As opposed to the Europeans of the early to mid 1900's.

Point is if you honestly think about it an not try an react to what I wrote right away youll find im right. You wouldnt give a picture of a Hutu General or Pol Pot a second glance. So why would it be different with Nazi imagery. I personally dont care one way or the other being of Asian Decent but I find the knee jerk reaction to Nazism an the passiveness used to brush off other horrific acts of the human condition utterly rediculious. That is your San Francisco/ Berkeley hippy for you though. only slightly educated on the issue they hold in their right hand, an completely oblivious to the one in thier left.


an to get back to the actually reason for my post. No im not offended by Nazi Icons or anyother for that matter. Im much more thick skinned then that. you want to call yourself a Nazi an preach Nazism go ahead. I wont stop you. No one stops the Witnesses or the Mormans from going door to door an preaching an I dont perticularly agree with them either. Doesnt mean im going to censure them. I just wont listen to either of you.

There are indeed a number of offensive symbols. However, I'd have to believe that the Swaztika (sp?) is about the most universally-recognized offensive concept of them all. Why? Not because the Nazi concept of government is any more offensive than other types of government. If Hitler had never murdered 6 million people, another form of government is all it would have ever been.

But the fact is he did murder some 6 million people, and that symbol has become synonimous with genocide. So why would anyone wish to display such things in a positive manner? There is of course, room for presenting such things as a "memory of outrage" exhibit, as a cautionary thing to prevent such a horrendous act from happening again. But these people who pretty much worship the 3rd Reich and are Hitler-maniacs... what are they thinking? Such total disregard for humanity is shocking, to say the least.

If one wants to avoid falling off a cliff... the idea is to stay as far away from the edge as possible. If we see how close we can get to the edge, a simple breeze can cause unbalance and we plunge into that which we severely wished to avoid.

Is Hitler and Germany going to be the last to perform such terrible deeds? We would hope so-- but likely not. Do we think for one moment that the U.S., Brittain, France, Spain or Africa could not plunge into the very same mindset at the drop of a hat? All of these nations are prone to excessive, mob-concept nationalism. Look at Rawanda, Malawi and other genocidal examples. Hitler was not alone. He was just exceptionally proficient at his evil.

It is only by abhoring and strictly avoiding things that have in the past proven to be reprehensible that we prevent that head-long plunge into disaster. Recognition of such danger is why the U.S. has passed laws against organized hate-based activities (or so it is claimed. Why hasn't it stopped the KKK?). But as long as people keep denying how dangerous that cliff edge actually is,as long as they keep insisting on seeing how close they can get to the edge... humanity will continue to fail to learn the lesson that the Nazi regime taught us-- and will repeat the same twisted mistakes.

Nazism and Nazi symbols have a clear - and immediate - cultural meaning in the modern day West. Displaying them means one of the following:

- you are a Neo-Nazi and believe in at least some of the ideals of the Nazi party;
- you are simply out to shock, and might as well be showing a huge picture of a penis;
- you really do have some view on reclaiming the swastika as a religious symbol (rare);
- you are some sort of naive "free speech" advocate who doesn't appreciate the context.

In my experience, the first two are the most prevelant on the internet. IRL the first is far and away the most common. We *do* have these people around and they *do* terrorise and beat up immigrants, Jews, anyone with a different skin colour... as well as attempt to get their policies into law through political means.

I'm not too worried about silly little kids posting pictures of Hitler to get a rise out of people - I'm used to that, I've spent a long time on Livejournal - but I find the former offensive to say the least. And yes, I have come across people in SL who really do profess an honest belief in, say, eugenics.

This rubbish about "I know more genocides than you" is just abusive flak; I bet a million L$ that you don't. Iconography from them simply does not have the same cultural meaning. It's all about context. And let's not get into this silly idea that the Nazis were somehow this amazing socialist party and therefore socialism is Nazism - look at the number of Communists who ended up in concentration camps, look at the policies of WW2 governments, look at the business dealings between the Nazis and private companies, it's just a stupid idea that's been introduced by ideological nutcases for the approval of idiots who don't know any history.

Why is this "naive"? Because we disagree with you? I feel that if we limit free speech by outlawing Nazi iconography we risk becoming as tyrannical as they. And I'm not the only one who thinks this way, and I'm not "naive."

Apparently the United Nations General Assembly was worried about human rights and freedom way back in 1948, for it adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which declared:

ARTICLE 19:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions to without interference and to seek, receive and imprat information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

Of course, it's not just the United Nations that feels this way about free speech. Any number of other bodies, international and domestic in multiple nations, feel this way. They can't all be "naive". Indeed, many of us feel that it's naive to think that if we start limiting free speech in this way it won't be limited in other ways.

Displaying offensively racist iconography because you think it defends free speech to do so, and doesn't say "I am a racist", is naive.

I have defended the continued access of the BNP and other racist groups in this country to general media channels on the basis of freedom of speech, but I'm buggered if I'm going to promote them because of that.

Simply because I believe in everyone's right to freedom of expression doesn't mean that I believe in everything that they say, but good job taking what I wrote out of context.

I didn't say I wanted to display anything rascist, just that I defended other's rights to do so.....but then, I think freedom applies to even those people with whom I disagree. You might think that's naive, I think it's mature.

Oh, would that be the same United Nations that put Lybia and Syria on the Human Rights Commission?

My bad, you're right, that one mistake invalidates everything else they've ever done.

Displaying racist iconography, in the full knowledge that it is a symbol of a group quite willing to abuse and beat and kill real people - and who do so - as well as supporting the persecution of people because they are "immigrants" etc by slightly more subtle political means, means that you are supporting them. You're not supporting "free speech", you're supporting racists. You can support free speech without supporting racists, I do so all the time.

If you don't want to display these symbols then fair enough, but I don't know why you're arguing the point in that case.

I support the right of anyone to display any symbol, even ones I find offensive. I never displayed anything. What are you talking about? Are you responding to what I wrote?

I'll repeat what I wrote earlier: I support everyone's right to freedom of expression, regardless of whether I agree with them or not. Freedom of speech "as long as I like it" isn't a real freedom at all.

No, but it makes anything they say about human rights somewhat laughable.

Wonderful. Terrific. You get two cookies. You're just speaking to the void, though. That has nothing to do with the point that I was responding to, which was about displaying Nazi iconography.

Well, I can't speak to what you may have been responding to, but that's what I wrote several times above. I'd suggest you go back and read it.
Then again, I'm pretty "naive" about this whole thing clearly, so maybe it's not worth the effort.

What on earth are you talking about? You seem to have popped up to say that not everyone who displays Nazi iconography for the purpose of "free speech advocacy" is naive, in response to one of my interpretations of the motives of those who do. Yet you say you don't want to display it yourself, and don't offer any further defence when I make an argument that yes, it is either naive or racist. Well, fine, I suppose.