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

I think that most people don't know or understand the history of one of the most (in)famous Nazi icons: the swastika. We should be teaching each other what the original, 3000 year old symbol stood for and discuss how its original meaning was hijacked and, pretty much, destroyed by the Nazis.

Brief History of Swastika

To boil down the history of the meaning behind the swastika:

"For 3,000 years, the swastika meant life and good luck. But because of the Nazis, it has also taken on a meaning of death and hate."

1. No, your exapmple is more of an educational use. I think people should be educated about the dangers of bigotry, rasicism and brutality.

2. Your example is too broad. It doesn't say why the nazi symbols are displayed. If it's pro-nazi, then certainly, it should be prohibitted. If it's more of a "Down with Nazis" Anti-Nazi, then that's ok by me.

3. Yes, bigotry, rasicism and anything that promotes brutality and segregation should be banned. Call it hypocrasy I suppose, intolerence for intolerence, but these symbols, these "movements" are too powerful and easy to gain momentum. They must be actively fought against

Back.. sorry!

It isn't the *need* to override. And YES, there are other venues to talk about such things.. But..

SL is a unique entity. It is something new and eclectic all in itself.. It is a new world, a second life. And just as in RL we seek friendships and others we can discuss things with that are controversial, personal, out-of-the-ordinary.. we do so as humans with our own second life.

Nothing is really sacred here. At least not to many. There is no "game" here, other than the game of life. Why is it so hard to believe that some want to discuss, ask questions, and explore a variety of topics. Even those that are "controversial".

Philip, Robin, and others of Linden Lab have told us their dreams and hopes for this "new world". They, just like us, are trying to balance a fine line always..

In essence.. we are Evolving in this new world..

So of course it stand to reason that we .. as "children" in this new world.. are going to push our boundries. See where we can go.. and in essence... hope to shape the future..

I think the main problem with offensive actions and behaviours is not the visual aspects of it but what it stands for.

People get offended by a swastika, but what is a swastika? A swastika didn't do anything to hurt anyone, it's a symbol that was used by people who did lots of things to hurt people. And that's where a lot of my problems have come in, I use swastika's often, in my art and in my buildings. It's an important symbol to me, meaning the balance of all things and the movement of the world (one interpretation of many many many interpretations that have come from 3000 years of usage of the swastika across the world). I get hassled for using it sometimes, but really it doesn't make sense. Have I ever done anything to make anyone think I was a nazi? Hell my avatar is black. But I still get called a Nazi everyonce and a while.

So when it comes down to it, people tend to confuse the iconography for the meaning of malcontent. If I slap a swastika on something it doesn't necessarily mean i'm a nazi, it could mean i'm a part of one of these many cultures/religions it's used it, it could mean I just like the symbol, or it could even mean i'm an immature jerk and think it's cool to slap taboo symbols all over the place. But none of those necessarily mean i'm going to throw you in a concentration camp.

So when it comes down to it, here's how SL should be looking at this situation:

Putting up a Swastika on something: Not bad

Saying "I hate Jews and (insert a racial slur here)": Big Bad

After all, what would LL (or anyone else for that matter) do if the Nazi symbol was a cross? You'd mark off that the Nazi's were jerks and used it for a while, but that's now how it should be interpreted. Well it's the same thing for me, the Swastika is a religious symbol that's getting badmarked because of this stuff a lunatic did 70 years ago.

Drop the nazi stuff and let's just get offended by the people who actually SAY something offensive.

The test with regard to the display of symbols should be whether a reasonable man would conclude that offence and insult was BOTH intended, AND likely to result in the light of the location and prominence. The test should not be whether members of a particularly sensitive group are in fact offended. Being particularly sensitive, they are least able to judge the relevant factors impartially and fairly.

Not legally.

Eggy Lippmann said:

1) Do you personally consider any and all "Nazi iconography" offensive? If you happened to open an encyclopedia on the page about Hitler and saw a big red flag with a swastika on it, would you feel offended by it?

No, there is such a thing as time and place for everything. If I opened the Joy of Sex and saw a image of a two people makiing love. I would not be offended. If I saw the same image on a billboard in public. I may be offended.

2) Do you believe that, in general people should not be able to display "Nazi iconography" on the internet, or in public? Even if it's not meant to endorse it or portray it in a positive light?

Once again no. If your using it to whip up support to kill the jews. Yes I have a problem with that.


3) Do you believe that these things should fall under a blanket ban here on SL in particular?

No it should be on a case by case basis. The issue here is someone making sport of something very serious and tragic.

My answers:

1) No, for the love of god, it was 60 years ago, I'm not jewish and my country wasnt even involved in WW2. Neither me nor my parents were even ALIVE back then, and even my grandmother was just a little kiddy.

When did hate aquire a expriation date? Is there is a "Best Used BY" stamp on the swaztika? May I remind you there are still hate groups today who use this material and still preach the same hate that was preached 60 years As a jew I am offended that someone can make light and sport of meathods that exterminated 13 million people.
I am happy that you and your family missed out on WWII era. My father fought in WWII along with all my uncles. Including one uncle who was in a unit that liberated a slave labor camp. A event that shook him so deeply he refused to ever talk about it.

2) No way. Freedom of speech and expression are sovereign, censorship of any kind is wrong, and widely practiced by the very fascist regimes we are supposed to be standing against.
People who are overly sensitive should realize that it's a flaw they need to work on, instead of forcing the rest of us to live in a padded cell. What's next, forcing tables to have rounded corners in case somebody gets hurt? Please.

With freedom also comes responsibility. Just because you can dosn't mean it's always right. Votaire said the right to swing your arm ends at my nose.
For some folks it is not being over sensitive it is a wound. One that may heal slowly or never at all. Your best friend just broke his leg. YOu come in and kick in him in the leg.
Do you say "Gee Charlie your just a little over senstive, its' a flaw you should work on"
We do not nee to live in a padded world with grip rails to protect us. All we need is people who think before they act. I live in a country were gun ownership is legal but it dosn't give me the right to go around and just shoot it off where ever I want. Who ever gets in the way be dammed.

3) I have always believed SL in particular should allow you MORE freedom than the rest of the world, since it has always been a place for creation. As artists, people should be allowed to experiment with things that are not seen as the norm. Especially on private islands.

I have gotten rather tired of the old saw "It's art so we are allowed to act like morons and anyone who is offended is just not as smart or hip as we are" Art may give you the medium to express how you feel but dosn't give you license to rub everyone elses nose in it.


When I first saw the thread I was really confused. Was this a clever troller or was he dead serious. Then I saw some of the first replies. My first reaction the world has gone mad or it's a SL in joke that I am not getting. I was relieved to see that I was not the only one nauseated by what this fellow had put forth.

As far as closing the thread and saying that kind of activity is not welcome in Second Life.
There is one small fact your over looking, This is Philip Rosedale's sand box and what he says is law. If you don't like that fact. Start your own Second Life then you can paint it from end to end with swastikas and make all avatars wear SS uniforms. Untill that happens you two choices. Live by what Linden Labs puts forth or pack up your marbles and go home.

I bid you peace.



Rox

If people can't talk about it, they can't educate.



So..who gets to pick and choose when anti-something is ok..but pro-something isn't? Sounds like facism. How about just a general discussion on it's effects, it's symbols and it's history, and the acceptance of using such in comedy and style?



If you ban everything negative, then you don't learn..nor do your children. Such behavior has been around since the dawn of man. If you think banning discussing it from a forum will stop it from happening again, then I'd have to strongly disagree. But ignoring it and not talking about it will certainly help it grow and gain strength undetected. Like a fungus growing in the basement..unless you turn on the light, you won't notice it till it's widespread.

Can I just second everything Willow just said?

I'm a VERY sensitive person. And yes, I'm rather highly disturbed by Nazi iconography. Yes, it bothers me in an encyclopedia, no, it doesn't mean I think it should be removed. But, the GENOCIDE that happened with these 'Nazi icon' seals-of-approval makes me more than a little bit sick to my stomach. Sorry. - Er, well, no I'm not. I think it's very reasonable to be made sick by the thought of 6 million people killed by twisted assholes who thought it was "ok" to do so just because they were Jewish. I'd be equally sickened if anyone started thinking it was "ok" to slaughter 6 million German people. Or 6 million Americans. Or 6 million green eyed people. Or even just one.

For the purposes of educating people? Yeah, it should be there. For the purposes of reminding people of the horrors of the past so that they aren't repeated. Yeah, it should be there. To have a good time with some sexual fetish? No, it shouldn't be there. Sorry, but that's my opinion, and I held my tongue about that for quite a while. Doesn't turn me on, doesn't make me laugh, doesn't remotely appeal to me -- as an "overly sensitive" person.

And, I also further feel that my flaws are my own damn business, I'm sure everyone has a few of their own. Clean up your own damn back yard before you start looking at the mess in mine, thank you. Have a nice day.

Some great points Artemis, and I agree to an extent, although I do think that sometimes the display of a symbol can be a statement.

The Nazis, as we all know wore Swastika armbands and forced Jews to wear Star of David armbands. This was to make a statement, "you are different than us and beneath us", and so on. therefore any display of that symbol is usually equated with hate.

The problem we run into is that we live in modern times, and most folks nowadays have no clue what it meant initially and through the ages. Furthermore, the more we educate on Nazis, the more people will associate the Swastika with evil. Somewhat of a Catch-22. As for myself, I have known for many years that it was in use LONG before the Nazis came to be, and even have some Zuni items that bear the Swastika.

What I am getting at is that we have to look at how the greater mass of modern humankind views and understands the symbol.

I have to agree with the poster who said that because it is illegal to display so much as a Nazi salute in Germany, and that SL is available there and is already played by Germans, that LL has to consider that.

If I could make the decision, I would allow it as long as it was displayed according to it's ancient meaning, not in the Nazi manner on a red field with a white circle. That use of the actual Nazi twist on the symbol is obviously hateful, unless it is used for purely educational uses. Which leads us to the grey area; some folks would and probably have used it in SL for educational purposes, unfortunately some others hide behind that "out". This is why I think LL has "outlawed" it, because its nigh on impossible to know somebody's true motives. Not to mention that the forums are intended to be a tool to discuss and exchange info about SL, they are not meant to be an "encyclopaedia" for anything other than SL. One could make a stronger case possibly, for displaying the iconography inworld, however, then we are asking the Lindens to judge intent on a very touchy topic, and that is really a lose-lose situation, they will piss off somebody regardless.

All that said, it really is a shame that the Nazis managed to permanently stain a positive icon.

If you are American or British, Nikki, you must be pretty upset with your current government. How does 40,000 to 50,000 sound, just for starters ?

You ok with dispaying American or British flag ?

Find me an adult that doesn't know the history of the Nazis and WWII.



Linden Lab.



They didn't say we couldn't talk about it, in fact we are right now, they said no iconography.

bah.. you totally missed my point! Oh well..

Not really. No matter how 'special' we feel about SL or wonderful about a 'new world', real world law has to be considered. Just ask any of SL's lawyers.

First, Ellie, we're not discussing the current situation, but... since you bring it up....

As it happens, I don't fly an American flag. Not in my real life, and not in my second. Not because I don't honor the values that it represents - I do. I honor the values that the American flag stands for, even if I disagree with what the current government of the US is up to.

What does the swastika, or at least the Nazi incarnation of it, stand for? Does the vast majority of the world's population define the American flag or the British as a symbol of hate? Of intolerance? ... Not quite yet. When/if the day comes where the world at large views it that way, as a symbol of hate, you can rest assured that I will stand here saying the exact same things I am now about the Nazi incarnation of the swastika in regards to the American flag.

touche'

I consider what the Nazi's did one of the most horrible things in man kinds history. They used the red flag/swastika as a symbol to represent their ideology. Consequently, because I find their ideology offensive (and frightening), when used in the context of representation, I find their symbol offensive. In other words, if I were reading a book about history and the symbol was in the book as an educational tool, I would not find it offensive. OTOH - If my neighbor suddenly put up a big sign that says "Die [insert race/culture]" and raises the symbol on a flag - hell yes I'd be offended. It's all in the context.

I find it ironic though, that the cross has been used to symbolize how Christ was killed and it has also been set on fire and used as a symbol of racism, but it remains a cherished symbol. Just an observation. Again, if used to denote racism or murder, then I would also find the cross offensive.

I think it's how and in what context the symbol is applied rather than the actual symbol.

In the right circumstances, a plywood cube can become offensive if it were used to denote murder or racism.



I think it depends - I am really against censorship but I'm also against inciting a riot. In other words, if the symbolic displays intent is educational or for some reason other than to garner support for murder or racism then I have no problem with it.



Only when the symbol is used as a means to grief and again, garner support for murderous or racist ideology. For example, if a group in SL wanted to re-create battles or scenes from the second world war, and created uniforms to this purpose, then I'd have no issue with this. OTOH, if a group created only the Nazi uniform (storm trooper style) and began marching through clubs and shooting people, or carrying rainbow flags with lines through them, then I'd take issue and abuse report them.

It's a really fine line I guess because it's not always easy to correctly interpret peoples intentions, but it is in fact, the intention that is potentially offensive and not the symbol.

.

Its just that you caught my eye by saying that thinking it was ok to kill 1 made you sick just as 6 million did.
I imagined you unable to live your life through incessant vomiting.

Most people seem to have a threshold of about 5 million for their definition of "hateful ideology" and the "vomit point".

Just to keep you running for the bucket, did you see the unedited news footage of Madeleine Albright very, very unambiguously agreeing that (over eight years) around 500,000 iraqi children had died directly as a result of sanctions ? Then equally unambiguously stating that it had been "worth it" ? I still have it on my hard drive somewhere. Absolutely no ambiguity or confusion or other interpretation possible. It had been worth the deaths of half a million Iraqi children to get the benefits sanctions were bringing. Doubt their parents agreed.

Bigger bucket ?

My point is that which regimes are hateful depends on where you stand. The victors write the history. What if Germany had beaten the British, consolidated Europe for a couple of decades, building up strength, and then defeated America ? Would the equivalent of SL be talking of banning display of American/ British flags? Its entirely possible.

My point is that I THINK, as you do, that the Nazi regime was exceptionally evil. But I'm not absolutely CERTAIN it was as bad as they tell us. I'd like it openly discussed, and properly researched now, without anyone having to fear any sorts of accusations for considering any particular viewpoints. I see discussion being supressed, by states, using criminal law, and I can't help suspecting there might be something to hide.

The reason for this to me it would seem is just that not enough people realize and use Swastika's as a religious symbol here (US), the country is mostly Christian and therefore people are going to protect and defend their symbol. Wheresa a small population of the country has to do with the Swastika as a religious symbol, and their voices are drowned out by people screaming of nazis. If you go to another country, particularly an eastern one, you'll get a completely different view point since this symbol is well known and in use. I went to a Shinto temple and saw swastikas everywhere.

So really when it comes down to it, it's lack of knowledge and understanding about what the swastika REALLY means.

I do find it as sickening to take one human life as I do to take 6 million. That's me. If one life is precious, six million are not MORE precious - they are EACH individually precious. Hope that makes sense.

Let me make this part of my first post in this thread perfectly clear, as I admit readily that certain points stand out above others: Displaying Nazi iconography as part of education SHOULD NOT be "outlawed." If we cannot learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it. Yes, the images still sicken me. Any image symbolic of that much hate sickens me. A burning cross sickens me. But, yes, the images should be allowed if they are part of education, etc.

The problem, as has been mentioned, is how does Linden Labs know the motives of another player? In the case of the um... slave group ... I think it was pretty clear that was not education. That's my humble opinion about that. It's a tough place for LL to be, and perhaps it is simply easier to say "It is all outlawed within SL" than to have to try and sift through the motives of everyone who would choose to display Nazi iconography.

Of course, I do still feel that if the intention is to educate, then yes, the images should be allowed. If it's just for fun, or sport, or sexual gratification or anything like that - well.. you know. That bothers me. A lot. And I don't feel it is appropriate in those situations.

Maybe Hitler chose the swastika because it was somehow an expression of the opposite of what he was, but expressed what he wanted to be.

A bit like the homosexual community ending up "gay" when at the time being homosexual was anything but that (still being persecuted and prosecuted).

I always regretted the loss of that word. When I was a child it was one of the most beautiful, pure, and expressive words there was for a human mood. Now its gone. Maybe that's why they wanted it. Sort of wistful. Pity though.

No.
Besides the obvious which is that there were swastikas long before there were nazis, "offense" in the sense meant here is really just a part of life. One cant expect to be protected from every little bad feeling and opinion that comes along. I am offended by websites with Aamerican flags and those cheesy giant Eagles everywhere. Seriously offended. But because I am in a minority, my offense does not matter? Thats not right.

No. Censorship of any kind without demonstration of real hurt is offensive in itself. If the production and display of imagery involved the death of someone or almost anything besides an "I dont like that thing" type of offense then maybe. Otherwise its the thin edge of a very fascist wedge. Another irony.

No. I agreewith you that if anywhere should be free of this kind of weak-kneed silyness, it should be SL.

IMO banning and censoring of thes kinds of things leads more often to a victory for those you are trying to censor. It gives a certain cache to the symbol that it would immediately be drained of if allowed to flourish.

I would like to add that you are very brave (and very foolish) for even bringing it up.

1) Do you personally consider . . . "Nazi iconography" offensive?

Yes.

If you happened to open an encyclopedia on the page about Hitler and saw a big red flag with a swastika on it, would you feel offended by it?

No.

3) Do you believe that these things should fall under a blanket ban here on SL in particular?

Absolutely.

Roxie, you are not the only one who feels the way you do. LL is absolutely right to have a ban on this sort of imagery, not only because there may be other coutnries that outlaw it, but also because much of their player base would leave in droves if it were allowed to stand.

Hate speech, hateful imagery, and making light of or a game of other people's misfortunes (to put it mildly) have no place in any online game.

coco

I don't think it was homosexuals who adopted that term. It's hard to find a solid history of the term 'gay' and it's evolution of definitions, but one explanation given is that 'gay' was used in the 1940's as 'code' for homosexual on T.V., since 'homosexual' could not be said. I don't know how valid that is, however.

With a little more searching, I was able to find this:

gay:
1. adj. (16th century England theatrical) young men or boy wearing the costume of a women in a play. [send in the Gay.]
gay boy 1950s geycat 30s and 40s hobo slang a trap younger homosexual lover
2. 1637, it took on the meaning of a person leading a loose and immoral life.
3.prostitute 1825, it was sometimes used to refer to female hookers. A "gay house" was a brothel
4. late 19th century, to be convalescent, or in good health.
5. nuon. (16th century) homosexual man. 1933 “Gay" was first used to in USA Literature and movie's, refer to a male homosexual in the 1933 play "Young and Evil." Cary Grant used it in the 1938 movie "Bringing up Baby" to refer to a transvestite. Cary Grant exclaims, "I've Just gone gay--all of a sudden" to explain why he is wearing a fur-trimmed nightgown. [Completely Queer The Gay and Lesbian Encyclopedia By Steve Hogan Lee Hudson Copyright © 1998] Gershn Legman and G.V. Henry mentioned the term gay in their book Sexual Variations (1941).
6. New Yorkers were using "gay" by World War II as a alternative to "Queer," "pansy," and "fairy." The term gay did not become widely familar to the general public, until the Stonewall riot of June 28, 1969 by 1974 the word "gay" meant both "gay and lesbian" (e.g. the lesbians who were active in the Gay Liberation Front preferred calling themselves Gay rather than Lesbian). But the general public used gay, in ways that ignored or excluded women, so gay women favored the word "lesbian. A 1995 survey in the Advocate, 34 percent preferred to called "gay women."
7. adj. happy excitement, merry. 1800 It was used as a synonym for happy by Chaucer in the 14th century.
8. adj. lively or bright.
9. verb. [USA 1990s] to be inadequate or displeasing; TO SUCK. something bad or unacceptable. ["that's so gay" or "that's gay."] ("That movie was fucking gay." note: In the late 1990s the teen culture started using the word gay to represent something not acceptable to their standards. From the late '60s gay was associated with homosexuality, to most of society homosexuality was unacceptable and considered bad, so the word gay has transformed itself into something bad or unacceptable.

What does a swastika have to do with hate speech and hateful imagery? The swastika isn't itself hateful imagery, after all it was made as a symbol of peace. And the swastika certainly isn't yelling out hate speech. It's stimulus generalization. The stimulus in this case being Hitler's actions, and the generalization being the swastika. Hitler's actions are now associated with the swastika, but that's not fair to the people who use it as a religious symbol.

Granted there's a context for this, of course if someone slaps it on a place that is inherently hateful (however it may be, you decide), but if it's in a temple, or just a normal looking place. Then is it really hateful out of that context?

Really when it comes down to nazi iconography, I think it only falls under an offensive blanket based on the context, the symbol itself isn't hateful. But if you want to do it like that, then it's not the symbol you're banning it's the context.