CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Does this break your freedom of speech?
Recently a kid in my club came in with a swastika on his t-shirt. Some students were shocked and some were offended. Others didnt care. A staff member made him change his shirt. He said they cant do that because that's against his freedom of speech: symbolism. Is he correct?
Yes. Under certain circumstances. You have to look up the origin of the swastika. It means "to be good" or "being with higher self". In modern times most people place it into the same category as the Nazi movement. If there were and Jewish people in there I can see why this would happen but mostly no because it truly has a better meaning.
Actually. Both were used. The Nazi's faced theirs on the flag rightly. In the end it still means the same thing. You wouldn't know anything about Nazis though since you cant even understand true rebellion.
The terms are used inconsistently in modern times, which is confusing and may obfuscate an important point, that the rotation of the swastika may have symbolic relevance, although ancient vedic scripts describe the symbolic relevance of clock motion and counter clock motion. Less ambiguous terms might be "clockwise-pointing" and "counterclockwise-pointing." They rotated it often.
Stop fucking trolling my debates. Damn you are ignorant and stupid. Still believing we are the same person? How are we both on the ACTIVE NOW thing on the home page? You didnt think of that did you? Of course you didnt.
The meaning and symbolism of the swastika is irrelevent. Our constitutionally protected freedom of speech was designed to protect citizens from THE GOVERNMENT, not other citizens. Unless the government becomes directly involved, it is not a violation of freedom of speech.
Wait so you are saying that our freedom can be infringed by another citizen? So a citizen can literally just say whatever he want or portrait whatever he wants to another citizen even if the things he said are threatening or degraded the quality of that persons life? The symbolism behind is is extremely relevant because that is the core of this debate.
Yes it can be, so long as they are not violating other laws like assaulting you. If you go into a shop owned by a Muslim and start insulting Muslims, they, as the shop owner, can ask you to leave and refuse you service. They are expressing their own freedoms there. You may have the right to say whatever you wish, but they also have the right to respond how they wish. You may have freedom of speech, but that does not free you from consequences, only from government censorship.
Mature people know that it is not always appropriate or beneficial to say everything they believe at all times.
Was the person right in asking him to not wear that shirt at the meeting? That is a matter of opinion. Was the other person right in wearing a potentially offensive shirt in the first place? Also a matter of opinion. Was the person who asked the other person to remove the potentially offensive item legally justified in doing so? Yes. That was his own invocation of freedom of speech, and since he apparently had authority in a voluntary club, it was his judgement call.
He WAS able to express his freedom. The other people were also able to express their freedom by not wishing to be exposed to something they found offensive. Obviously, in this kind of situation both parties cannot have thier freedom simultaneously. So the group leader had to make a judgement call.
Did this kid NEED to wear this shirt? of course not. Was wearing this shirt potentially detrimental to the harmonious functioning of the group? Apparently. When you live around people you sometimes have to make concessions and realize that yours are not the only feelings that matter. It is called being civilized. It isn't violating your necessities, and the government is not involved, so if you have to compromise, you are willingly reigning in your own expression. He is the one who agreed to change his shirt or leave the meeting. He was, eventually, his own censor. Legally, he wasn't actually required to do these things.
But he didn't comply. He was forced to change the shirt. In tinker v. des moines independent community school district, 393 U.S. 503, 89 S. Ct. 733, 21 L. Ed. 2d 731 (1969), the U.S. Supreme Court held that it was unconstitutional to suspend high-school students for wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War, because their conduct was "akin to pure speech" and did not interfere with the work of the school or the rights of other students. The shirt wouldn't interfere with the work of the students. Especially if none of the students told him that it was offensive.
But he didn't comply. He was forced to change the shirt.
I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where the police came in and arrested him.
From what I could gather, he wasn't froced to do anything. He was given a choice: leave or change the shirt. Maybe not the option set he was hoping for, but its still a choice. Again, FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS NOT FREEDOM FROM CONSEQUENCE OF SPEECH.
In tinker v. des moines independent community school district, 393 U.S. 503, 89 S. Ct. 733, 21 L. Ed. 2d 731 (1969), the U.S. Supreme Court held that it was unconstitutional to suspend high-school students for wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War, because their conduct was "akin to pure speech" and did not interfere with the work of the school or the rights of other students.
I'm sorry, I must have missed something else. Like missing the part where he was suspended from school. This was, from what I can gather, a voluntary club, not part of his requirement to attend school.
Especially if none of the students told him that it was offensive.
You're sorry, you must have missed the part in the description where it specifically said Some students were shocked and some were offended....
If the students expressed revulsion, the staff member had to make a judgement call, partially designed to limit the responses from the parents of the other kids as well as to facilitate a productive meeting. I can't tell you if I would do the same thing in that position since I wasn't there. But I have managed groups of people many times and can understand why the person with responsibility might have made this decision.
Also this case is similar to this one.
There is a huge difference between being suspended from your academic obligations and being given the choice to either change a shirt or not participate in one group meeting.
Tell me, some schools require a dress code or limit what their students can wear because of gang activity. Do you also consider this an infringement?
If rules are set in a place before you act the way you did it is your fault. The swastika is not a gang symbol. Th students did not report him. The teacher acted out on his/her own. These students didn't do anything.
How do you know this? Once again, it is clearly stated that students were offended and shocked. It doesn't appear that they stopped the teacher either...
Like that really matters. One use of the symbol involved genocide. Even though the history of it is much more altruistic, try telling that to someone of Jewish descent.
Then explain yours to the Hindu and all the other people who used it before them. I mean this symbol was altered from its original meaning but it still applies its ancient meaning.
Let us be realistic here. Whatever its history and original meaning has, modern generations in western nations view it as the most disciple symbol around right now. That may be unfortunate, but someone can not and should not be oblivious to that. They have the right to attempt to explain it, sure. But if it doesn't go over well, why is their unnecessary and likely intentionally provocative stylistic choice more important then the understandable emotions of the group?
If we do the math in this example set for us only 33% took offense. Therefore by your logic 66%-67% of those students emotional states no longer have a placement in the judgement of the child. If we go based off of majority, which is how you place your momentary style of judging something, then what about the others? Do their emotional states not matter any more?
If we do the math in this example set for us only 33% took offense.
So, if we have 10 people total, excluding him but counting the authority figure, that is three people.
If we go based off of majority, which is how you place your momentary style of judging something, then what about the others?
3 people are numerically greater than one. If any of the others had something to say....they could do so and majority could rule. But in partial silence, one only can listen to those who speak.
But in partial silence, one only can listen to those who speak.
Yet the only one who decided to say a word was the teach. Also overriding a teachers ruling in school is practically impossible.
Also if we redo the math to the way you put it then 30% defeated 70% but by your logic majority rules. So what happened there? Also if 100% of the students, excluding the kid, said nothing then 1 person defeated 10 or as you would put it 1 person defeated 7. What is that?
You keep insisting that nobody said anything, yet I keep pointing out that the original description said that multiple people were offended. I do not believe either of us know the true sequence of events, but by the way it is written, I find it quite likely that the discomfort of the offended was public knowledge in this gathering.
Also overriding a teachers ruling in school is practically impossible.
Granted. But this was apparently a club independent of official teaching hours. I've been in clubs like that, and things do change if you have the courage to change them. The doors were open, far as I can tell.
Also if we redo the math to the way you put it then 30% defeated 70% but by your logic majority rules. So what happened there?
The same thing that happens when a pollster approaches 100 people but only 33 choose to participate in the poll. You can only count those who chose to be counted.
Also if 100% of the students, excluding the kid, said nothing then 1 person defeated 10 or as you would put it 1 person defeated 7. What is that?
He WAS able to express his freedom. The other people were also able to express their freedom by not wishing to be exposed to something they found offensive. Obviously, in this kind of situation both parties cannot have thier freedom simultaneously. So the group leader had to make a judgement call.
So if he was gay, and the people felt his homseuxality was offensive, would he allowed to be kicked out of the place legally?
Was wearing this shirt potentially detrimental to the harmonious functioning of the group?
How so? She didn't say he came in spouting racial slurs. He was wearing a shirt, the topic was not brought up until the group leader found it to be worthy of bringing up.
When you live around people you sometimes have to make concessions and realize that yours are not the only feelings that matter.
That sounds like conformity.
He is the one who agreed to change his shirt or leave the meeting. He was, eventually, his own censor. Legally, he wasn't actually required to do these things.
When a police officer says get in his car without reading you your rights, the officer is at fault. The person who abused the kid's rights was also at fault because the kid, who most likely looked up to the group leader, did not know he was still legally allowed to wear his shirt.
So if he was gay, and the people felt his homseuxality was offensive, would he allowed to be kicked out of the place legally?
If he was talking openly about his sex life, regardless of his sexual orientation, and people found it offensive and he would not desist, yes.
If, regardless of his sexual orientation, he wore a giant penis on his shirt, and people were offended, yes.
It is about group consensus and people who do offensive things are occasionally going to be asked to leave. This has been a part of social living since well before humans fully evolved, I'm sure.
the topic was not brought up until the group leader found it to be worthy of bringing up.
Am I the only one here who read the debate description? It is clearly stated that some were shocked and offended, and it seems fully feasible that the staff member was responding to these concerns.
That sounds like conformity.
It is. It is also being reasonable, mature and humble enough to realize that you aren't the center of the universe and that the feelings of others are just as valid as your own.
The person who abused the kid's rights was also at fault because the kid, who most likely looked up to the group leader, did not know he was still legally allowed to wear his shirt.
Now your just making assumptions. Anyway, the kid was still illegally allowed to wear his shirt, he just couldn't participate in this one club meeting with it on. It is like how you are legally allowed to drive a car, just not through somebody's front wall.
If he was talking openly about his sex life, regardless of his sexual orientation, and people found it offensive and he would not desist, yes.
Just his being gay is him being open about his sexuality, if people know about it.
It is about group consensus
That is conformity.
people who do offensive things are occasionally going to be asked to leave.
Wearing a t shirt is not doing an offensive thing. Regardless of what the symbol means, it's not like people are physically disturbed by it.
His shirt is silent, practically invisible unless he's calling attention to it.
Am I the only one here who read the debate description? It is clearly stated that some were shocked and offended, and it seems fully feasible that the staff member was responding to these concerns.
My apologies.
8It is also being reasonable, mature and humble enough to realize that you aren't the center of the universe and that the feelings of others are just as valid as your own.
In that instance the kid is now putting everyone else's feelings over his own, how is that any better than putting his own over everyone else's?
Now your just making assumptions.
What I meant was this. The kid is young, the kid is used to doing what people older than him say, someone older than him told him he could not wear that shirt. Without thinking, or really even knowing his rights, he decided to remove it. While that is obviously still an assumption, it's one that should be taken into consideration. Most* kids do what people older than them tell them.
Anyway, the kid was still illegally allowed to wear his shirt, he just couldn't participate in this one club meeting with it on. He could if he had know he was allowed to legally. Unless of course the place was privately owned.
It is like how you are legally allowed to drive a car, just not through somebody's front wall.
Not quite the same. You can legally express yourself. Like you can legally drive. You can not legally destroy someone's property, like your expression can not physically affect others.
Just his being gay is him being open about his sexuality, if people know about it.
Not really. There is a difference between having general knowledge of one person's life and having that person constantly and unnecessarily drawing attention to it. But really, this is slightly off topic. I see your point, but I thinking you are wandering from the apple orchard to the orange grove.
That is conformity.
Yes. Humans are a communal species. Almost nobody is completely independent of society, and for the species to thrive, cooperation is necessary. Large-scale forced conformity is inadvisable, but some degree of conformity is always implicit in potentially contentious group action. The question is when it is time to conform or rebel, and I have yet to be convinced that this is not a scenario where conformity is more beneficial to all who were involved.
Wearing a t shirt is not doing an offensive thing.
While I personally agree with you, and made the same argument to my parents about several articles of clothing I purchased when I was under their roof, our idealism is not quite in synch with reality. In modern America, the swastika is possibly the most revolting symbol out there. And for people of Jewish descent, or even of German descent, the offense they get by seeing it can't just be dismissed with a wave of a hand because it represents a very despicable moment in relatively recent memory. Few people can be so ignorant as to not realize it is likely to draw out strong emotions, so using it can be construed as potentially provocative and distracting. And I can guarantee you that if my friend, who is descended from German holocaust survivors, was in the room, it would be far from invisible to her.
In that instance the kid is now putting everyone else's feelings over his own, how is that any better than putting his own over everyone else's?
First off, the math. Many>one, and while that formula is not always applicable, its not like removing the shirt was going to cause him any harm. He could put it right back on after the meeting. No biggie.
Second, sometimes you just have to take one for the team. That is far more honorable than knowingly distracting from the purpose of the meeting just to exercise your rights.
Most kids do what people older than them tell them.
And in many cases that is the best course of action. Not always, but again, in this situation, his failure to comply would have served him no good, and he may have realized that.
Not quite the same. *
Granted, that was a bit of a stretch. So let me rephrase my point:
Just because you can do a thing, it doesn't mean you must. Just because you want to do a thing, does not mean you should. And if you don't have the wisdom to determine what to do, others may be in the position to inform you. Freedoms sometimes conflict, and the scenario determines who looses out at that moment.
There is a difference between having general knowledge of one person's life and having that person constantly and unnecessarily drawing attention to it.
But how is being offended of knowing it, and different than being offended by them showing it off. If the rules that the person in charge can deal with anyone the group is offended by, is still in place they can kick out anyone. His right to freedom of expression should protect him in both cases.
I see your point, but I thinking you are wandering from the apple orchard to the orange grove.
That's clever, and ironic, considering your final analogy on the previous debate was one of apples and oranges.
the conformity topic
I'll leave that alone for now, that has nothing really to do with alw, that's about one's self, I even agree that conformity is a survival tactic, and he should probably conform.
In modern America, the swastika is possibly the most revolting symbol out there.
Very true, and a revolting gang still exists that are legally allowed to practice their expression so long as they do it legally. That group is the KKK.
Few people can be so ignorant as to not realize it is likely to draw out strong emotions,
Yes it was insensitive, evil meaning or not, but he is still protected and eligible to do it.
if my friend, who is descended from German holocaust survivors, was in the room, it would be far from invisible to her.
I'd argue that she could pay no attention to it, if the person wearing the shirt isn't talking about it, but then it'd turn into a kind of contest where one of us just claims who is more right with no grounds.
First off, the math. Many>one, and while that formula is not always applicable, its not like removing the shirt was going to cause him any harm. He could put it right back on after the meeting. No biggie.
What I meant by the question is why is it better that he put their preference over his, I'm sure he wouldn't feel that was so great.
Second, sometimes you just have to take one for the team.
Disregard the last question then, lol.
Just because you can do a thing, it doesn't mean you must.
This, again, means it's not the law it's him this should put others above himself, but his right was still violated, he didn't know he didn't have to take off his shirt.
Freedoms sometimes conflict, and the scenario determines who looses out at that moment.
I can sympathize with that. White people kind of lost the right to say whatever they want, as black people gained their rights, so common good is a situation that the law must account for.
But how is being offended of knowing it, and different than being offended by them showing it off.
The currently applicable actions of the offender. Knowledge is words writ in grey matter. Actions speak louder than words. Etc.
That's clever, and ironic, considering your final analogy on the previous debate was one of apples and oranges.
Point to you. What can I say, at that exact moment a clumsy analogy was the best I had to make my point. My bad :(
That group is the KKK.
And that group almost certainly runs into similar problems. They can gather, and meet, and be despicable ass-hats on their own time. But when their time overlaps with that of others, they can be asked to leave, or be silent, or whatever...just like the rest of us. My philosophy is quite egalitarian.
Yes it was insensitive, evil meaning or not, but he is still protected and eligible to do it.
Indeed, but it is also protected and eligible to ask someone to leave or change clothing. Remember, the person who asserted authority had identical rights.
I'd argue that she could pay no attention to it,
I agree, but then...easier said than done. Personally, I think many people are too sensitive, but they have the right to be offended in exactly the same way and weight that we have the right to offend.
This, again, means it's not the law it's him this should put others above himself, but his right was still violated,
It sounds to me that several people's rights were violated. None had priority of necessity, so majority rules.
White people kind of lost the right to say whatever they want, as black people gained their rights, so common good is a situation that the law must account for.
In this scenario the law was never involved or invoked. This was a private exchange. "Freedom of Speech" is, in its common usage, a protection we have from the government, not each other.
I'll overlook the points that I feel like are pretty much settled, I'm not ignoring you.
It sounds to me that several people's rights were violated. None had priority of necessity, so majority rules.
This seems to be the most pressing issue. I mean if one group, him or the multiple, have to win, I guess it should be the multiple, but it's still undeniable that his rights were broken. For the common good, but nonetheless.
but they have the right to be offended in exactly the same way and weight that we have the right to offend.
He was using his right to offend, it was broken.
The comments I didn't respond to i either agree with or they were just answers.
This seems to be the most pressing issue. I mean if one group, him or the multiple, have to win, I guess it should be the multiple, but it's still undeniable that his rights were broken.
I suspect we are verging on a huge difference in philosophy here. It is my belief, that "rights" do not actually exist, but are bestowed on us either by authority or by group consensus. Nature is cruel, and will not guarantee any right, except those which we solidify through action. By my philosophy, both authority and group consensus appeared to stand against him. I've been there, I know it sucks. But I'm still alive; and I presume he is still alive, sitting in a Nazi mall somewhere with his Nazi shirt drinking a delicious Nazi milkshake, wondering if that blond-haired blue-eyed cute girl in his Nazi class would go see a romantic comedy with him. I imagine his life is perfectly fine.
He was using his right to offend, it was broken.
The authority figure was using his right to moderate the group he was lawfully placed in charge of. Guess whose rights will gain priority.
It is my belief, that "rights" do not actually exist
That's so ironic, I made a debate that was basically about that awhile ago, I was on the side saying they don't exist as well.
The authority figure was using his right to moderate the group he was lawfully placed in charge of. Guess whose rights will gain priority.
Yes, in a private organization he has more rights than any student or non-official of the establishment. But the kid's rights were still broken. Kids have a right to freedom of speech allegedly but that right is given up or broken when they enter a school, or if their parents say so. While it's still accepted, it's still being broken, it's just acceptably being broken, like a convicts right to the pursuit of happiness being broken when he or she is incarcerated for their crime.
I suppose I must admit, according to the specific verbiage of this debate, I must concede the victory to you. So I guess my most appropriate response would be something like:
"Yes, his rights, at least according to non-legally established unspoken social contract, were broken. But I support the teacher, due to equally non-legally established unspoken social contract, and a sense of propriety."
I do too. If I owned the place I would have just brought the kid aside said "What's wrong with you? Are you making a statement, either change your shirt or don't come back."
People should not be jerks just because they can.
It was fun debating you, and I'm glad to see we were able to get somewhere with this.
Its Buddhist, Hindu, Aztec, Egyptian and many Native American tribes used it and has always had peaceful connotations until Nazi Germany used it and forever tainted its meaning and it does not belong to one any more than any other
Let's say he was a hardcore Nazi, I still wouldn't personally care. If he wants to go around and kill people so what? The way I see it, if it doesn't affect me, why should I care? Also, freedom of speech is still very far from actually being true. There are a LOT of things that are censored in public, such as swearing or wearing an offensive religious t-shirt.
Really? That was part of the problem with the original Nazis. No one spoke up for other people because it didn't affect them. How could you not care if he was going around killing people?
Probably, I mean if you kill someone then claim" I am entitled to my opinions, and it was my opinion he should die, so you can do nothing!" Then obviously not. If, however, you wear a swastika on your shirt, you should expect to be taunted and harassed, but no one can take the shirt away from you as long as there are no rules saying " you're not allowed blah blah blah" like a non school uniform regulatory list.
But if she made him change the shirt, then yes break of freedom of speech.
The nature of the constitution itself does, due to it being a set of rules concerning how the government governs. The freedom of speech outlined in the constitution prevents the government itself from impinging on that freedom. Unless the person in this club was prevented from wearing that shirt by an agent of the government, or arrested for wearing it, the government itself is not involved and so it does not violate the constitution.
There is nothing wrong with wearing clothes that have a symbol on it. I thought USA was the "Land of the Free". People need to understand the origin of that symbol before considering it a symbol of "hatred". Did the symbol kill people? Nope.
SWASTIKA is a symbol of limitation of human rights, symbol of limitation freedom of speech, symbol of evil.
Only true cunt gives something like that to their child. In my country you would end up in prison for 2 years and it's a good chance that you would never see your kid again.
The Swastika is infamous for the reasons you have stated but its origins and use in certain religions is the opposite to what the Nazi's stood for and you would not end up in Jail in the UK for wearing a Swastika shirt we have freedom of speech and expression no matter how distateful (unless of course you are being threatening).
It's irrelevant that some redneck tribes used Swastika before Nazi. I'm from Czech republic. Wearing swastika has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Wearing it is qualified as "Openly supporting regime that seriously violates human rights" it's up to 5 years in prison. If you gave it to your child to wear it.. you will get the maximum of 5 years and you will never see that kid again. Same is it with Islamist extremists their visa/refugee status is instantaneously cancelled and they will wait in prison for deportation to random destination.
Redneck Tribes what the fuck are you on about, Buddhists, Hindus, Aztecs, Egyptians and Native Americans all used the Swastika as a symbol for peace only the Nazi's used it as a symbol for oppression and it is all about Freedom Of Speech/expression, as the quote says I might not like what their saying but I will fight for their right to say it.
By the way your little info about myself thing on here says you live in the UK.
The health care system's not bad once your used to it as long as you dont mind queing, I might be being a bit thick but what do you mean by public little over weponisation?
so many people has weapons... weird people, anyone... quite scary. I also have to pick some good insurance so I'm not going to die somewhere on hospital parking lot :D
Now I'm living in Cardiff, Wales. If lucky that my next address will be Boston,MA or Cambridge, MA.
I did my English certs in Manchester and Liverpool and those two are really scary places especially for foreigners, shootings, gangs..etc. stuff I saw only in Hollywood movies... and UK is pretty much "weapons free zone"... so I don't know what should I expect from US... I've read different articles about safety in US some says it's good some don't...
Manchester and Liverpool can be rough i've partied in both and always had fun but there are some areas that are no go zones unless your a local but most of those aren't the kind of places you'd want to visit!! The US is ok I know we hear a lot about shootings and stuff but if your careful you'll be fine
Wearing swastika is actively treating others, It means that everyone who has no blond hair and blue eyes is second grade human and has to die, so it's same as screaming I kill you. Buddhist's swastika is turned to left.
All we know is the Kid was wearing a Swastika on his shirt we do not know which way it was facing, he may have been a Buddhist or Hindu. That was another thing Hitler got wrong the Aryans were originally from Persia and migrated throughout Europe so would have been dark skinned and dark haired the left handed Swastika was also an important symbol to them. We probably need more info on the shirt before we judge the kid.
It's not Aryan (Iranian)... it's more like a concept of better people, it means honorable and often in combination with "Nordic race" and that's why it was chosen.
There's nothing in the debate description that says which way it was turned people are assuming it was a Nazi one and in America unless there is a rule for the club about such things they have freedom of speech/expression so he is within his rights to wear it regardless of wether we find it offensive or not. The same way that a Christian is entitled to wear a cross even though some people might find that offensive (bit of a reach I know)
They'd probably get you under the counter terrorism laws, even though we have Freedom Of Speech, Assembly and Expression in the UK and America there are laws that have been passed to try and curb it because the Government knows that if they tried to take it away there would be uproar. So your example would be stopped due to counter terrorist laws, if this kid was wearing a Nazi Swastika on his shirt and wore it in a Black or Jewish neighbourhood he could probably get nabbed for inciting racial hatred.
They'd probably get you under the counter terrorism laws, even though we have Freedom Of Speech, Assembly and Expression in the UK and America there are laws that have been passed to try and curb it because the Government knows that if they tried to take it away there would be uproar. So your example would be stopped due to counter terrorist laws, if this kid was wearing a Nazi Swastika on his shirt and wore it in a Black or Jewish neighbourhood he could probably get nabbed for inciting racial hatred.
They'd probably get you under the counter terrorism laws, even though we have Freedom Of Speech, Assembly and Expression in the UK and America there are laws that have been passed to try and curb it because the Government knows that if they tried to take it away there would be uproar. So your example would be stopped due to counter terrorist laws, if this kid was wearing a Nazi Swastika on his shirt and wore it in a Black or Jewish neighbourhood he could probably get nabbed for inciting racial hatred.
You are the one who is stupid. I have been studying comparative religion for almost 20 years. You just cannot handle the truth, you fucking cunt. You are wrong.
This symbol is not a hate symbol hence it is protected by the 1st amendment. There are indeed other limitations on freedom of speech. This symbol does not qualified to be included in those limitations.
No. A symbol similar to the swastika was, and still is, an ancient Hindu symbol. It's still a symbol that can be seen on streets all across India & other places, on temples, that inspires people to do good.
But, symbolism is not just about the origins of symbols. Symbolism is about what certain images means to people. And in the Western world, any symbol which resembles a swastika is fundamentally a symbol of pair, murder and the holocaust. Yes, Hitler did twist the meaning of the original symbol into something horrible, but just because we disagree with him does not mean that we can pretend that his actions never existed. His actions have changed the meaning of the symbol to billions of people, and you cannot ignore that.
Also, for the record, freedom of speech does not mean that you can and should say what you want at any point in your life. Freedom of speech means you have the right to hold certain views, and say certain things, and that you also have the responsibility to follow those views and express your thoughts, in a way that is a beneficial aspect of society. I may have a right to shout out fire in a crowded environment, but I have a responsibility to never do that - if I do, then I am abusing my freedom of speech. The same is true in this instance. The kid may have the freedom to support the views of Hitler, but he does not have the freedom to voice those views in a way that will hurt others, and he is not guaranteed a medium by which to do so, as you seem to think that he is.
In this case, one would have to evaluate the intent of the person who wore the shirt. If the intentions of the person were to to express himself through that ancient Hindu symbol, then one cannot argue based on how the rest of society will perceive that symbol if it has been established that this symbol belongs to a peaceful religious group and is part of their ancient history. Lets assume that terrorists have abused the Islamic symbol that represents their religion which is also ancient by bombing down towers and buildings ending in the loss of thousands of innocent lives. Does this mean that simply because someone else has abused a symbol, we as a country should prohibit anyone from using that symbol or expressing themselves when the foundation of that symbol is based on a message of goodness? While Hitler's actions have changed the meaning for billions of people, there are still billions and possibly trillions of people around the world who believes in this symbol as spiritual expression and guidance through their religion. The United States is a pluralistic society, founded on the beliefs of diverse groups of cultures and origins which are protected by the constitution.
And to begin with, any symbol that could mean murder or holocaust could actually mean something else and even if it did mean murder or holocaust it still does not promote violence using fighting words, it does not create an imminent threat and it is not an obscene word. I believe when you are talking about hurt you are referring to emotional hurt. If any concerns should not be voiced simply because they have the potential to hurt others then we wouldn't need the constitution at all. If the intention of the person at the time of wearing this symbol was to spread a message of goodness associated with Hinduism, then society cannot argue otherwise.
In this case, one would have to evaluate the intent of the person who wore the shirt. If the intentions of the person were to to express himself through that ancient Hindu symbol, then one cannot argue based on how the rest of society will perceive that symbol if it has been established that this symbol belongs to a peaceful religious group and is part of their ancient history.
No. The intentions of the individual wearing the symbol, and a reasonable expectation of how people will react to the symbol, must both be taken into consideration. Wearing a shirt that says 'Fuck you!' indiscriminately to everyone around you is offensive and rude, even if you yourself think it is funny. No man is an island, and you must consider how your actions affect others, if you want to live a moral life.
Does this mean that simply because someone else has abused a symbol, we as a country should prohibit anyone from using that symbol or expressing themselves when the foundation of that symbol is based on a message of goodness?
I have never said that a country should prohibit this. I have said that people must take the reactions of other people into consideration when interacting with them.
While Hitler's actions have changed the meaning for billions of people, there are still billions and possibly trillions of people around the world who believes in this symbol as spiritual expression and guidance through their religion.
But yes, and in those situations, with those people, I would consider the symbol completely normal. I used to drive through streets with that symbol, past Hindu temples, every single day, for years. In that instance, seeing a symbol similar to a swastika was not offensive. It's very obvious what the meaning of the symbol was there. If someone has a Hindu symbol on a shirt (which is different to a swastika, it faces the other way and is 45 degrees off), and it had text that made it obvious that it was a Hindu symbol, rather than a Nazi embellishment, then that is fine. I am not supporting censorship. I am supporting reasonable actions by reasonable people, and trying to explain how people can be reasonable.
The United States is a pluralistic society, founded on the beliefs of diverse groups of cultures and origins which are protected by the constitution.
Irrelevant, because the question is not specific to any one country. But in any society with any sense of diversity, respect for others is vital, and is needed for positive relationships between different people and cultures.
And to begin with, any symbol that could mean murder or holocaust could actually mean something else and even if it did mean murder or holocaust it still does not promote violence using fighting words, it does not create an imminent threat and it is not an obscene word.
You can support violence, and incite pain, without using fighting words, threatening, offending, or being violent. If I go around the streets of NY in a shirt that says 'Fuck America', people would be offended, and I should not do that. It doesn't matter whether or not this is a private joke I have with a friend, and its talking about the US in a fond way. People are likely to misinterpret this meaning, this intention, and if I want to live a moral life, to not cause pain to others, then I should not wear the shirt.
I believe when you are talking about hurt you are referring to emotional hurt. If any concerns should not be voiced simply because they have the potential to hurt others then we wouldn't need the constitution at all.
No, strawman. I am not saying do not say things that can hurt people. I am saying that you should not say some things, because they might hurt people.
For example, if I shout out fire in a crowded room, this will cause panic, and scare people. If I said what you claim I said, then I would be saying that I should not shout out fire, even if there is one. This is obviously not what I am saying. Immediate emotional 'hurt' is not the only thing to be taken into consideration, it is one of many. But that does not mean that I cannot speak against emotional 'hurt', without addressing all of the other things that must be taken into consideration. Life is very complex, and if I wanted to comprehensively analyse where the boundaries of freedom of speech lay, and how it should balance with all other aspects of personal and social rights and responsibilities, I would be here a very long time.
If the intention of the person at the time of wearing this symbol was to spread a message of goodness associated with Hinduism, then society cannot argue otherwise.
Yes, society can, but that's irrelevant to the original point.
Freedom of speech does not concern itself with the intention of people. If someone wants to do something good, or they want to do something bad, their freedom to do this thing would be equal. For example, if I want to kill everyone because I think everyone is bad (good intention), I should not be allowed to do this. If I want to kill everyone because I hate everyone (bad intention) then I should also not be allowed to do this. You are confusing the ideas of freedom of speech with morality. We may want people to do things that they think benefit others (within reasonable boundaries), and we may think that this is moral, but these people have just as much freedom to do what they want as anyone else. What I am talking about is using morality to evaluate freedom, and the extent to which it is allowed. If you want to do the same (which you appear to), then I am sure that you will agree that some freedoms must be taken away, and your totalitarian defense of freedom of speech must be given up.
If he had been wearing this in a public place and not affiliated with a club, then this would be a violation of freedom of speech. When you represent a club, organization, even a school then you have to act accordingly to what is supposed to be respectable standards. These standards are determined by the staff, school boards, etc. and have to be followed until those in charge have had their rulings over-turned by some act. This act maybe a decision made within the group itself or a ruling as a result of legal action. Until then; When in Roman, do as the Romans do.
I think the kid may have meant it to mean good things but he may have thought the way the nazis positioned theirs was the same as the Hindu and other cultures. Not to sure though.
