Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

App Detects Neo-Nazis Using Their Music

Unknown Lamer posted about 9 months ago | from the watch-out-burzum-loving-hipsters dept.

Music 392

Daniel_Stuckey writes "German newspaper Der Spiegel reported that the country's interior ministers will meet this week to discuss use of an app developed by local police in Saxony that has attracted the unofficial name of 'Nazi Shazam.' Just like Shazam works out what song you're hearing from just a few bars, the system picks up audio fingerprints of neo-Nazi rock so police can intervene when it's being played. The whole situation sounds pretty insane to an outsider, but apparently far-right music is a big problem in Germany, where it's considered a 'gateway drug' into the neo-Nazi scene. The Guardian reported that in 2004, far-right groups even tried to recruit young members by handing out CD compilations in schools. That sort of action is illegal in Germany, where neo-Nazi groups are outlawed and the Federal Review Board for Media Harmful to Minors is tasked with examining and indexing media — including films, games, music, and websites — that may be harmful to young people."

cancel ×

392 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

All I can say to that is... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45594643)

who?

Freedom of thought (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45594651)

It is despicable that anyone would be attracted to this sort of movement. However, it is extremely important that people be given the freedom to make the wrong choice of ideology. Only harmful actions should be punished.

Re:Freedom of thought (4, Insightful)

g0bshiTe (596213) | about 9 months ago | (#45594677)

I agree, hate groups aren't right, but barring freedom for one to choose for themselves to be involved with a hate group is worse.

Re:Freedom of thought (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45594749)

correct, if people want to burn jews, they should be free to want to do so. and if they can get the numbers to make it legal, then that's cool too. and it's probably unlikely that an entire society would sign on to that type of behavior - it's not like it has never happened before...

Re:Freedom of thought (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45594923)

Making immoral actions legal is not an ability a majority in America has. Even if a Left wing Socialist group like the Nazi party was voted in they could never get a foothold on an action that would harm other races. We have the constitution.

Re:Freedom of thought (4, Insightful)

sideslash (1865434) | about 9 months ago | (#45594959)

Making immoral actions legal is not an ability a majority in America has.

That obviously depends on whom you ask. Many people consider the right to life debate the most important civil rights issue today -- in some places it's legal to kill late term babies.

Even if you disagree on the abortion issue, I suspect that you can see that "constitutional" doesn't equate with "moral" if you look at where we've been in America with slavery and so forth.

Re:Freedom of thought (0)

somersault (912633) | about 9 months ago | (#45595069)

Even if a Left wing Socialist group like the Nazi party was voted in they could never get a foothold on an action that would harm other races.

You mean actions like embarrassing funny coloured people at an airport, or invading their country?

Re:Freedom of thought (0)

dyingtolive (1393037) | about 9 months ago | (#45595353)

Ooh, ooh, or rounding up nationals who descended from a small island in the pacific and putting them in forced camps?

Or setting up secret, legally questionable prisons to house those funny colored people you mentioned.

Yeah, last 100 years have been pretty enlighted for us here in 'Merica.

Re:Freedom of thought (3, Insightful)

liamevo (1358257) | about 9 months ago | (#45595085)

Did you decide to fly in the face of most political scholars and historians to try and score some political points by describing Nazism as left wing?

Re:Freedom of thought (1)

dosius (230542) | about 9 months ago | (#45595153)

And socialist, at that... Naziism was hardly socialist, name notwithstanding.

Re:Freedom of thought (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45595241)

The National Socialism party was left wing. But like everything, it is in a spectre of nuance. For example, extreme capitalism could enable a single corporate monopoly that would essentially become the state and extreme communism can enable the state to become the single monopoly that would essentially be like a corporation. Left and right are only relevant to the peasants still chained to their delusion of control, right and wrong, good and evil. There is only here and now, fuck off.

Re:Freedom of thought (1)

jythie (914043) | about 9 months ago | (#45595255)

'left' and 'right' wing in general are pretty useless for trying to draw parallels. What they mean in any particular culture changes so much even over a decade or two, they are pretty meaningless when one attempts to apply them across cultures and nearly a century.

Re:Freedom of thought (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45595359)

No, he just swallows ESR's bullshit unquestionably. LOLbertarian double think at its finest.

Re:Freedom of thought (1)

terevos (148651) | about 9 months ago | (#45595147)

This might have been true in the 1930s and prior (when they actually had to pass a constitutional amendment in order to outlaw alcohol). But now people do not hold the constitution so highly. It's much easier to ignore now.

Re:Freedom of thought (3, Interesting)

jythie (914043) | about 9 months ago | (#45595295)

Eh, historically the constitution was pretty routinely ignored too. Even before the final draft lawmakers were making it clear that they did not intend to follow its literal interpretation and instead had all sorts of 'well of course we didn't mean XYZ, use common sense!'. Much of the bill of rights only really started gaining legal traction over the last few decades as civil rights pushed literal meanings more. For instance, cases involving religion, until very recently, assumed that freedom of religion only applied to 'real' religions such as Protestants. Quakers, Mormons, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, even though they were 'close' were not considered 'real' religions and thus the establishment clause (and freedom of speech) did not apply, and religions not from the same tree were even less protected.

Re:Freedom of thought (4, Insightful)

erikkemperman (252014) | about 9 months ago | (#45595157)

Even if a Left wing Socialist group like the Nazi party was voted in they could never get a foothold on an action that would harm other races.

You realize that the Nazis are about as RIGHT wing as you can get, I hope. Yes, yes, I know they abused the word, but they were Socialist in much the same way that North Korea is Democratic.

We have the constitution.

Do you?

Re:Freedom of thought (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45595253)

There are certain right-wing talk radio hosts in America who [erroneously] refer to the Nazis as *left*-wing, for obvious reasons. If you don't know history and you just parrot what you hear, it's easy to be confused, like the GP obviously is.

Re:Freedom of thought (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45595283)

Constitution? really, that hasn't stopped the current administration in power much...or maybe you haven't been paying attention. The constitution only works when the majority still honor it...otherwise its just a piece of paper.

Re:Freedom of thought (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45595299)

You do realize that Nazi's are right wing not left wing.

Re:Freedom of thought (5, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | about 9 months ago | (#45594957)

Freedom of speech isn't safe. In fact it is very dangerous. That is why the United States has that first in its bill of rights, because it is so dangerous, you need a powerful law to keep it intact.

But it is really fair for the Government to say protect Far Left ideas while trying to hinder far right ones?

Now I do not support this ideology, and I agree it could lead to dangerous behavior. But trying to suppress it, could be worse. That means you could have a large population afraid to speak their minds. And if there was a government shift to the Far Right, there could be far more supporters then you would think. With little education to help moderate many of them.

Freedom of Speech and Democracy are hand and hand. Now Democracy isn't about getting the best leader, it is about balancing safety with freedom of speech.
If you have Far Right ideas and you are vocal about them, and you still loose each election, it means you probably will not be able to take over the government, any attempt including military fill fail as bulk of the citizens will be against you. However if you hinder the freedom of speech, you could have the majority to join on your side in case of some revolution happens.

Re:Freedom of thought (4, Insightful)

jythie (914043) | about 9 months ago | (#45595333)

On the other hand, pushing something underground, while it makes it more concentrated, tends to de-normalize it. An open, normalized movement can be a pretty powerful political shift. If you look at all the major changes in US politics, it was only after groups became open and normalized (more or less) that they actually got traction and got policy put in place. When they were underground they had strong core groups but their general connection to the population was minimal.

Re:Freedom of thought (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45595201)

Right, and everyone here who supports free expression wants to burn Jews and everyone who listens to gangsta rap wants to kill cops and rape "hoes".

At some point, the younger generations of Germany will get tired of constantly being told how rotten they are because they are German and they will tire of paying taxes to support Israel. Nobody likes to hear their culture being constantly demonized and nobody views paying restitution for something they had nothing to do with as just. Promoting self-loathing and guilt amongst German youth isn't something that will work forever, esp. as the WWII generation dies off. Perhaps Germany has already reached that point.

Re:Freedom of thought (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 9 months ago | (#45595245)

correct, if people want to burn jews, they should be free to want to do so.

That's not what GP said and you know it.

Re:Freedom of thought (1, Insightful)

davek (18465) | about 9 months ago | (#45594765)

I agree, hate groups aren't right, but barring freedom for one to choose for themselves to be involved with a hate group is worse.

I know I'll get marked as a troll for this from the euro-centric crowd, but this is exactly why you embrace freedom-loving society and not authoritarian socialism like they have in Europe. As John Green has said, you cannot declare war on an idea or noun because nouns are so amazingly resilient.

Re:Freedom of thought (5, Insightful)

quax (19371) | about 9 months ago | (#45594837)

Since this is only with regards to minors, how does this differ from the US censoring (there it's all about sex).

I strongly suspect that American police would arrest people handing out pornographic material to kids at school?

Re:Freedom of thought (0)

X0563511 (793323) | about 9 months ago | (#45595195)

It's one thing to have porn laying about in the open and hedonism on open display, but it's just as bad to go Full Catholic about it. Like so many other things, either extreme is bad.

MOD PARENT DOWN! (I am a smart European.) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45594861)

He obviously doesn't know what he is talking about. davek is yet another silly American who upholds the "values" of the "US Constitution" that too many Americans whine about. That Constitution is getting in the way of them protecting themselves from terrorism domestically as well as waging wars internationally which keeps the whole world safe. Their Constitution is all but ignored now anyway, and the Americans seem happy and complacent. That is all that matters. Down with the Constitution. Down with the parent who is a blatant troll.
 
CAPTCHA: mumble

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN! (I am a smart European.) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45594933)

Any document that says Wyoming gets 60 more votes than Georgia sucks balls and is not a valid basis for government.

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN! (I am a smart European.) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45595105)

I don't understand this. Wyoming gets three electoral college votes while Georgia has nine. What are you referring to?

Re:Freedom of thought (0)

dunkelfalke (91624) | about 9 months ago | (#45594911)

What freedom loving society are you talking about? USA is not one. For example, in the USA you can get arrested by the campus police and receive jail time for tresspassing if you aren't a student. There is no campus police in Germany in first place, I can freely walk through the campus and even listen to lectures (not supposed to do the latter, but from my experience nobody bothers to check).

That is just one of many examples.

Re:Freedom of thought (4, Informative)

Entropius (188861) | about 9 months ago | (#45595137)

As someone who's been involved with universities for a while: you cannot get arrested by campus police for trespassing on most campuses. Public universities are public property, and most places in most buildings are open to the public. (Of course, if you wander into a professor's lab without his permission, you're likely to get in trouble.) At the University of Arizona where I got my doctorate, homeless people would regularly come to the library to use the computers for internet access.

Many private universities incorporate substantial tracts of public land (they consist of buildings on public streets), or are on private land but are open campuses. Only a few campuses are truly closed campuses where visitors are not welcome; those are no different than any other private land. So I don't know quite what you mean.

Re:Freedom of thought (1)

hubie (108345) | about 9 months ago | (#45595239)

What sort of campuses are you talking about? On all the campuses, large and small, that I have been on, this is not the case. It would put a big damper on attracting people to lectures, cultural events, plays, etc. that the colleges and universities actively promote outside the campus. Are you over-generalizing from some isolated event ("Don't taze me bro")? Now maybe if you are talking about hanging out in the bushes outside the women's dorm, then yeah, that will probably happen to you.

Re:Freedom of thought (5, Insightful)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | about 9 months ago | (#45594947)

I know I'll get marked as a troll for this

"Mod me up! Mod me up!"

from the euro-centric crowd, but this is exactly why you embrace freedom-loving society and not authoritarian socialism like they have in Europe. As John Green has said, you cannot declare war on an idea or noun because nouns are so amazingly resilient.

Your argument would be a lot more convincing if you'd left off the second sentence there. The freedom-loving US has declared "War on $NON_MATERIAL_THING" more often than any other country I can think of.

Re:Freedom of thought (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45594953)

"authoritarian socialism like they have in Europe" *shakes head* Newsflash: Most of Europe has had right leaning "free-market uber alles" governments for the past 10 years as evidenced by the privatization of public resources, and only eastern Europe ever had authoritarian governments, so your statement is about as correct as saying "the Americas are ruled by military dictators/juntas".

Re:Freedom of thought (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45595043)

bah, forgot to 'after world war 2 - except for Spain who still rather not talk about Franco, who by the way was not a socialist' - before that there was plenty of authoritarian governments but those were also not socialist. Not even Russia had been socialist very long before that. Perhaps you're confusing socialism for liberalism? Because after the french started with getting rid of their arch.conservative right-leaning government (the king) they decidedly went right-leaning classic liberalism and as with all good fashion the rest of Europe slowly mimicked them.

Re:Freedom of thought (1)

no_go (96797) | about 9 months ago | (#45595331)

Western Europe did have authoritarian governments, right leaning ones, on both Portugal and Spain up to the mid 1970s.

The Portuguese dictatorship, although not as violent and repressive as the Spanish or the East European comunisms (at least on the european portion, the colonies where a whole different thing) was still pretty awfull. Political Police, Imprisonments, internal and external exile, the odd assassination, complete absence of any freedoms of speech, and also a very regimented economic regime. To all this add the behaviour on the colonies (pretty much all of what you have heard from apartheid South Africa).

I certainly do not want a return to those times.
"Free speech" is already regulated (of note: slander).
Restricting access to the public and civic arenas to those who which to restrict ALL of free speech (and willing to cause serious physical harm to those who opose them) is a necessary evil.
Doesn't mean we don't have to be vigilant on how that impacts political and civic life.

Comparing this directly with "constitutional rights" in the US, which has a very different sociological make-up and a VERY different recent history (to both Germany and Portugal) is a non-starter.

Re:Freedom of thought (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about 9 months ago | (#45595039)

This is why you just don't want to mix your moral and economic philosophies. Is authoritarian socialism any worse than theocratic capitalism? or monarchic feudalism?

If you have a socialist system, the needs of society are held in higher regard than the needs of individuals. If you have an authoritarian system, the government decides what those needs are. There is an inherent conflict of interest there, where the people in government can simply declare that society needs whatever they want.

In a feudal society, where the needs of the lord are held highest, authoritarianism is good. The lord says what the lord wants. Similarly, in a democratic socialist society, the people define what the people want.

The key for a freedom-loving people like the majority of the Western world is to limit authoritarianism without undermining authority. We don't seem to have that figured out yet.

Re:Freedom of thought (1)

NemosomeN (670035) | about 9 months ago | (#45595127)

I would argue that although hate groups are worse than barring people from hate groups, the government can stop the latter immediately, so it should be stopped. Work toward making the choice unattractive, not just illegal.

Re: Freedom of thought (0)

nbritton (823086) | about 9 months ago | (#45595281)

Not if it's impinging on my freedoms, we settled this back in 1945. To hell with your new Nazi ideologies!

Re:Freedom of thought (2)

jalopezp (2622345) | about 9 months ago | (#45594993)

Nazi ideology is not banned by the German constitution. Some Nazi statements are banned, though they must either call for violence or racial hatred, deny the holocaust, or glorify the Nazi government of Hitler. Racist statements that do not call for hate or violence are allowed. Similar laws exist in the United States (see here [wikipedia.org] for the court's opinion) where the main difference is that the US only bans such fighting speech when it incites to immediate violence or hate. Invitations to deferred violence or hate, such as are found in far right music in Germany, or even if they are in writing or transmitted by radio, are banned by the German penile [iuscomp.org] code.

Re:Freedom of thought (1)

Entropius (188861) | about 9 months ago | (#45595297)

Banning calls for "racial hatred" is a slippery slope. Where along the line do you start arresting people?

Also, I think you mean "penal code"; "penile" is an entirely different word.

Re:Freedom of thought (2)

jythie (914043) | about 9 months ago | (#45595217)

As with many things there is a tricky balance between what freedom a society allows vs restricting freedoms that have negative consequences to others. In Germany's case they have a pretty clear example of this particular freedom having pretty horrific consequences, so I can not blame them for being touchy about allowing such things to grow again. For Germany, Nazism is not just some abstract philosophical threat, but a particular culture that had a very concrete negative impact.

Wagner (2)

amalcolm (1838434) | about 9 months ago | (#45594653)

Young Nazis these days - what's wrong with a spot of Wagner - the original musical Nazi!!

Re:Wagner (1)

jalopezp (2622345) | about 9 months ago | (#45595203)

You jest, but are entirely right. Quoting the article quoting the Federal Review Board for something:

This applies to, for example, media that contain indecent, extremely violent, crime-inducing, anti-Semitic or racist material, also to media content that glorifies National Socialism, drugs, alcohol abuse, self-inflicted injury or suicide, to media content propagating vigilante justice and to media content that discriminates against specific groups of people.

There is no way that doesn't include Wagner.

thought police (1)

dlt074 (548126) | about 9 months ago | (#45594661)

can't very well have any of THOSE kind of thoughts.

Re:thought police (1)

SirGarlon (845873) | about 9 months ago | (#45594843)

I suspect Nazi prohibition in Europe will work about as well as drug prohibition in the USA.

Re:thought police (1)

J'raxis (248192) | about 9 months ago | (#45594977)

They've been prohibiting Nazi-type groups since WWII. And as the article said, they're still a major problem in Germany. So yeah, it is working out about as well as the drug war. But hey, it lets the politicians say they're "doing something" and lets the cops get all sorts of new toys (and ever more tax dollars to buy more cool toys), so it's all good, right?

Re:thought police (1)

postbigbang (761081) | about 9 months ago | (#45595009)

These don't correlate well. One is inwardly destructive, while the other is outwardly exclusive and destructive.

One involves a network of producers, processors, distribution, and sales, whilst the other is ideological, delusional, tribal, and "evangelical".

Oh, wait....

Sounds so wrong (1)

C0R1D4N (970153) | about 9 months ago | (#45594671)

I can understand why modern Germans would certainly hate anything Nazi related, but as an American the idea of just making the expression of ideas, or listening to certain music illegal sounds worse than the ideas they are oppressing (though any Nazis in power would of course do the same thing)

Re: Sounds so wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45594701)

Next thing you know they will say rock and roll is the Devil's music and youngsters will have to hide inside barns and other places to listen to music and dance.

Re:Sounds so wrong (1)

east coast (590680) | about 9 months ago | (#45594739)

Don't worry, it's coming. I'm sure it's already here in some round-about manner. Being an American doesn't say much for how much freedom one does or does not have anymore. While I don't always agree to the whole slippery slope argument I'd have to be honest and say that it's been pretty much the case in the last few decades. Probably throughout the entire lifetime of anyone reading this.

Re:Sounds so wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45594779)

It is not illegal in Germany to listen to that music.
It is illegal to distribute that music. This includes playing in public spaces.

Re:Sounds so wrong (1)

Triklyn (2455072) | about 9 months ago | (#45595057)

can citizens apply for a permit to play the music in a public space?

or can they obtain a permit for a peaceful neo-nazi rally?

how nazi-ish does one need to be to be barred from obtaining said permit? what if they had no iconography, and changed their name?

who makes that decision, where does the designation fall?

how does one decide what neo-nazi music is? unless the song name is "yay nazis" isn't it open to interpretation? who decided that this music is promoting hate?

for some of us, even though it is happenstance, appreciate that the first amendment is first. The primacy of the first is serendipitous and right.

Re:Sounds so wrong (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about 9 months ago | (#45595379)

You are aware that NAZI actually means "National Socialist German Workers' Party" right?

Don't get me wrong as I am not claiming they are at all related, but a Republican is a Republican no matter what you call it - I don't see why this would be any different. It's a political ideology, and what you call it does not change the ideology.

Re:Sounds so wrong (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | about 9 months ago | (#45594845)

but as an American the idea of just making the expression of ideas, or listening to certain music illegal sounds worse than the ideas they are oppressing

Because America is the bastion of freedom where nobody has ever been sent to a concentration camp without trial. Ever. At least not in recent history. Well, not in the last... five months.

Re:Sounds so wrong (1)

Sir_Eptishous (873977) | about 9 months ago | (#45595209)

I have an elderly neighbor of Japanese descent, who was actually born and raised in the US. We got talking one day and I realized he was around during the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII. I casually tried to get him to talk about it... He admitted he was in the camps but wouldn't elaborate further...

The real questions is, how long will it be until it happens again in the US?

Re:Sounds so wrong (1)

Triklyn (2455072) | about 9 months ago | (#45595243)

it's distasteful, but our constitution only fully protects us. And in a general sense we must make allowances for extenuating and ever changing circumstances. jurisprudence is written case by case, explicitly when the law is violated or unwritten.

Re:Sounds so wrong (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | about 9 months ago | (#45595321)

it's distasteful, but our constitution only fully protects us.

One problem that applies even for the most egotistical point of view, is when the definition of "us" changes.

Re:Sounds so wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45594877)

but the Nazi atrocities involved jews that makes it special, all other kinds of hate is fine

Re:Sounds so wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45594981)

There is a psychological explanation for the German scat fetish: if a people are force fed so much shit over their own past and history for so long, they either break and choke on it, or they bend like reeds, accept the pressure and develop a fetish for it as a coping mechanism.

So German eating shit and smearing it all over themselves is merely a physical manifestation of the psychological pressure exerted by the re-education and allied and Jewish atrocity propaganda, which deliberately paints and interprets all German history and properties in fecal toned colors and expressions.

It is merely a survival tactic born out of a most perverse and continuing rape of the German psyche and spirit.

Re:Sounds so wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45595159)

Oh yes, here we go again - its not us, its forces external to us that cause us to act this way, blah blah blah. The same old bullshit.

I listened to Marylyn Manson... (5, Funny)

jjohn (2991) | about 9 months ago | (#45594681)

...and now I am a pansexual vampire.

Music: it's as bad a Hitler.

Re:I listened to Marylyn Manson... (0)

Bardez (915334) | about 9 months ago | (#45594881)

Where are my mod points when I need them?

Re:I listened to Marylyn Manson... (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | about 9 months ago | (#45594907)

I listened to Freddy Mercury and while I don't feel gay, I must surely be.

Unless the gay soundwaves were countered by the manly music of AC/DC!

We need Germany to tell us the precise effect of each style, so we can decide what to hear to be the people we want to be.

Shazam with a filter (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45594711)

Do they really think setting Shazam to detect Rammstein so the police can intervene will really disrupt an entire ideology? Since when is it criminal to have bad taste in music?

Re:Shazam with a filter (1)

fisted (2295862) | about 9 months ago | (#45594833)

Protip: The device is not supposed to trigger on mainstream music.

(That being said, you should still refrain from touching its operational end.)

Re:Shazam with a filter (1)

Sir_Eptishous (873977) | about 9 months ago | (#45595171)

Just the tip.

Re:Shazam with a filter (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45594855)

:D
Rammstein is not neo-Nazi rock.

Think of the old stuff from the Böhse Onkelz to get an idea of what they try to detect.

Re:Shazam with a filter (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45595215)

You're right of course, I was being facetious.

It's concerning that the idea of censorship solving a societal problem is so widely accepted. It doesn't matter if they're waging war against neo-Nazi rock or children's songs, at the end of the day they're trying to exercise control over people's thoughts and will fail as a result.

It's somewhat ironic that this type of thought crime enforcement seems like it wouldn't have been out of place in Nazi Germany.

Oh, the irony. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45594767)

This likely won't end well, whichever way it goes. The problem here is coercion, not self-identification, or whose ox is being gored.

What else is there to say?

Far Right? (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45594781)

I thought far right was considered conservative, one of the only political groups that supports Israel. Its usually the far-left that is saying for middle east peace Israel needs to be wiped from the planet and shouldn't get support from the US. Just last week Obama is letting Iran, who has stated they want to nuke Israel, to continue enriching Uranium in return for the sanctions on them to be lifted. If that isn't anti-Israel (neo Nazis in agreement) I'm not sure what would count.

I guess this is just one more case of the left trying to blame their hatred and racism on others.

Re:Far Right? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45594955)

This is Left-World. In Left-World, anything good is left-wing, and anything bad is right-wing.

Whereas the real conflict is between the International Socialists and the National Socialists. Splitters!

Re:Far Right? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45595081)

Political labels don't mean the same thing in Europe, amongst the American citizenry and the American Media. In particular, the American media routinely call middle-of-the-road, mainstream political views, such as wanting to reduce govt spending, "far right", "right wing", "religious extremist" or "extremist". The American media also likes to call unprincipled or left wing politicians "moderates". The American media almost never even uses the label "left wing" and observing the American media call any leftist an "extremist" is about as common as duck teeth. Hell, Obama's buddy Bill Ayers set off bombs for the express purpose of trying to overthrow the US govt. Have the media ever called Ayers an extremist?

One of the biggest problems in translating political labels between Europe and America is that there is no equivalent in European politics for someone who supports deliberately limiting the power of a central govt, what we in America call an "originalist" or a "constitutionalist". In Europe, "right wing" and "left wing" are both labels for people who support very powerful central govt. Maybe someone would say that Europeans who call for limiting govt power are "liberal", but in American politics, "liberal" means socialist or progressive. I don't know what "libertarian" means to a European. In the US, "libertarian" is frequently used to label libertines.

Re:Far Right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45595261)

To call 'nazis' far right is to have not read their agenda which is easy enough to find on the internet. State controlled production and with 'private' ownership and work for everyone who belongs to the party. State enforced monopolies owned by those in the party. Also to belong to the party you need to be part of the 'in crowd'. The hate they spew is a side effect of their 'we are the best' smug policy. The agenda is what drew millions to their cause in WW2 (I can have work and feed my family if I look the other way). They were out of work and wanted a nice scapegoat for it instead of their own failed policies of trying to manipulate their currencies and companies thru taxes and outright theft.

You could also make a case that Nazi Germany was 'far right'. As to enforce those policies they had to turn into a dictatorship like most socialist programs in the end game. As there is always that one guy who figures out how to game it.

Hate groups (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45594827)

So if the government has this kind of power, when are they going to start cracking down on that other hate-group, Islam?

While I have no love for hate groups (1)

korbulon (2792438) | about 9 months ago | (#45594839)

I hate hate group hate.

only 79? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45594863)

"a total of 79 pieces of music for espousing neo-Nazi ideology or having racist lyrics"

Good thing they don't listen to American music then.

Nazis (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45594865)

Nazi's are left wing not right wing. Just like the KKK which was introduced at a Democratic convention. They would enjoy a gun free utopia that they could wreak!

Re:Nazis (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45595003)

Yeah, but the vast majority of the media is also left wing so anything that may have a bad connotation has to be "right wing".

Re:Nazis (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45595033)

Well, that's because US left wing parties are right wing compared to european left wing parties.

someone wasted time creating this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45594867)

What a waste of time. Such nonsense. I listen to death metal.. so what?

Re:someone wasted time creating this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45595167)

Death metal is fine ...unless the death metal you listen to calls for death of certain ethnic groups.

Micromanagement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45594883)

So basically a bunch of micromanaging control freaks are doing their micromanagement control freakery!

And a bunch of teens rebel against that micromanagement, just as teens do.

So in fact the problem of kids playing Neo Nazi music is *THEM* saying its so evil you cannot listen to it.

Protect your freedom of speech.. (4, Insightful)

xtal (49134) | about 9 months ago | (#45594887)

There's two unique things about the US:

#1. Absolute freedom of (written) speech, at least for the most part, to a degree that I am not aware of existing anywhere in the civilized world.

#2. Private citizens can own handguns and assault rifles for their own protection and uses.

Fight for those rights with all you have, because once they're gone, I doubt the world will ever see them again. Particularly #1.

If an idea is so repulsive, the place to discredit it is in the open, not to push it underground into the recesses of the underworld, lending credence and appeal to the idea through it's illicit nature. The written word is not a place for the state, any more than the legislature is a place for preachers.

Nobody should be put in jail for their words. Not even vile ones.

Re:Protect your freedom of speech.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45595005)

"#1. Absolute freedom of (written) speech, at least for the most part, to a degree that I am not aware of existing anywhere in the civilized world."

Yes. Especially if you want to show the world the crimes and torture of your government. But by the way, I'm not sure if the US counts as part of the civilized world. No Healthcare, Death Punishment, many believing in Creation, I mean, that are medieval thoughts.

Re:Protect your freedom of speech.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45595061)

Close. If it's a statement of fact that is demonstrably false and negatively impacts the reputation of another person, then that speech shouldn't be protected. This is why we have libel legislation, and why it is VERY important that the truth be a defense against libel charges.

But statements of truth and statements of opinion should enjoy absolute protection.

Re:Protect your freedom of speech.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45595271)

What a nonsense, viz. wishful thinking and reality denial. There is not more freedom of speech in the US than elsewhere. You doubt that? Just write Muslim hate speeches on some forum and see what will happen. (And the test will also work with radical anti-consumerist messages, I guess.)

And yes, people have been put in jail in the US for their words.

A Conundrum... (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 9 months ago | (#45594895)

OK, so TFS says:

That sort of action is illegal in Germany, where neo-Nazi groups are outlawed

But... if Nazi groups are outlawed... who's enforcing this patently Nazi law that punishes people for listening for certain types of music?

Re:A Conundrum... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45594937)

They are not punished for listening.
They are punished for giving it to others.

The German police are becoming "ill noise" Nazis? (1)

QilessQi (2044624) | about 9 months ago | (#45594915)

I *hate* ill-noise Nazis...

you favorite band sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45595263)

golf clap

False positives (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45594969)

Depending on who's list they go by, this could lead to alot of false positives.
If you ask the ANTIFA for a list of nazi bands, you'll get many bands which use historic iconography and yet aren't nazi.
Bands like Death In June, for example, get accused of being nazi all the time, even tho they are pretty clear on that issue.

Oh well...

First fiction, then reality (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about 9 months ago | (#45595015)

This looks like taken from the plot of A Clockwork Orange. Or Farenheit 451, with music instead of books.

Anyway, probably a lot of people would agree that the fans of certain music styles and groups should be put in jail or in a mental institution, but which music depend on each person and culture.

Re:First fiction, then reality (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about 9 months ago | (#45595175)

groups should be put in jail or in a mental institution, but which music depend on each person and culture.

Ah that's easy: If they're country bumpkins, then folk music should land them in the klink. If they're teenage girls, then boy bands should do the trick. If they're of party-going age then we just throw 'em away for listening to electro / dubstep.

See? It's essentially all music that should implicate you in having a desire to not be ruled by laws like these. Well, you could listen to music that we're sure you don't like, but you'll have to be registered via FMRI to prove it first. Paper's Please.

don't overreact (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45595023)

Do these people even think about freedom of speech? I don't understand why you would have nazi thoughts but they have the rights, right?

Has nothing to do with the USA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45595143)

You realize this article has nothing to do with the US, Nazi-ism is illegal in Germany, and for good reason. There is nothing about this that applies to the US, so all this "freedom of speech" bullshit being discussed isn't applicable, it's a completely different country.

Re:Has nothing to do with the USA (1)

fluffythedestroyer (2586259) | about 9 months ago | (#45595293)

Without hearing the music per say, i can't tell you if its wrong or not but... People tries to find their bubble (or a break from their reality) and for lots of people its in music. We're told to shut up when time comes, buckle up in cars...do this, do that, so many rules in society, obey the law here and there. The only way to let go of yourself is in music as theirs no boundaries or rules.

So is it justified or is it paranoia since the early years got to them soo much with the last 2 lost war on their shoulders. i completely understand why they would put a complete stop but all I got to say is put too much restrictions on one group and that group will rebel

Fighting Fascism with Fascism (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about 9 months ago | (#45595199)

Sounds like a open and shut case of a government preforming illegal activities.
I do not know much about German law, but if they outlaw fascist groups and literature, would that not make the government itself an illegal entity and all of the bills that its far-right fascist laws are written on illegal literature?

That would be interesting, I wonder what would happen if you brought that to the court system, and tried to have some government law or flyer outlaws, or the organization itself disbanded.

Can't say I care for this (1)

onyxruby (118189) | about 9 months ago | (#45595235)

I'm no fan of Neo Nazi's, but this strikes me as crossing over to the realm of thought crimes and criminalizing unpleasant people. Look at what they are trying to do, identify music as being wrong and identify a group of people as being wrong. Now take this same technology and remember that it can be used on other groups. What about using this technology to identify gangbangers that like gangsta rape or hackers since we know that they like techno?

The stereotypes are bunk of course and many people listen to music of multiple genres. From heavy metal bands that are classically trained and influenced (Metallica S&M etc) and so on. The whole thing stinks of trying to outlaw certain types of people simply based on who they self identify as. Society should stick with outlawing behaviors and stop being so judgmental of others. Slipper slope over here...

Talk about mixing up cause and effect. (4, Insightful)

gallondr00nk (868673) | about 9 months ago | (#45595355)

The trouble isn't Neo-Nazi CD compilations leading upstanding, bright young people down an alley into right wing extremism. If they're disaffected, for whatever reason, they will continue to be so even after the CDs are destroyed or the books are burned.

Yeah alright, ban it all. Ban the CDs, ban the literature, ban the swastica. No-one will be a Neo-Nazi anymore, right? All the problems are solved.

Wrong. You don't become a Neo-Nazi because you love and respect the society you live in. You become one because you want to tear it down. They'll just funnel their dissatisfaction elsewhere.

The key to learning from history isn't to ban it, but to educate and prevent the social and economic conditions that would mean repeating it.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>