I was wondering, since Europe in general, and the Nordic countries in particular, tend to have fairly stringent hate speech laws, why black metal musicians are so rarely prosecuted under these laws (since most black metal is offensive in some way or another to somebody). I think there are quite a few German NSBM bands that got nailed for promoting Nazism, but as far as I know there are no other significant cases. Does anybody know about how these laws have affected black metal over the years? The input of northern European M-A members is especially appreciated.

(Mods: I thought this was more of a political than a musical topic, but you can move this to Metal Discussion if you see fit.)

The thought of a black metal musician being prosecuted here in Sweden for writing offensive lyrics is completely alien to me. In reality, the only things you can't say anything bad about here are jews, immigrants and homosexuals. The thing is that since everybody does it anyway the actual enforcement of these laws are mostly limited to cases of harrassment (saying it straight to their faces) and within mass-media. I've never heard of anyone being arrested or prosecuted for writing offensive songs or the like. All the cases I've heard about from Sweden are people saying things in TV/radio or people actually harrassing others.

I should also add that over here, people are a lot less likely to sue you over just about anything than they are in America. This has a number of reasons:

1. You're not very likely to win any case in any courthouse here unless you've got damn good proof that an actual crime has been commited. Usually the winable cases go through the police and you won't need to sue anyone.
2. You don't get that much money if you win anyway.
3. If you lose, which in most cases is the likely outcome, you need to pay up a fuckload of money.
4. It is close to impossible for a private person to win against a state organisation or a corporation in a courthouse, unless it concerns a fully valid crime in which case it is probably handled by the police.

So if you basically get the entire concept of lawsuits from concerned parents /other people out of the equation, since those pretty much don't happen, we've only got the police left, and they only care if it's done on TV/radio or if it's done straight to someone's face as harrassment.

Besides, there is a little thing called freedom of expression that all democratic countries should have. If the Swedish government would actually censor music it would cause such a stir over here that it wouldn't be worth it in the slightest. The government has, thankfully, realized this.

The hate speech laws over here may look harsch on paper, but in practice they're actually very relaxed. There is just nobody here to enforce those laws (as well as a lot of other laws). Those who should do that don't care about these laws unless people breaking them makes them look bad. This usually isn't tha case.

Very interesting. I wasn't very familiar with the way these laws were actually implemented in practice (aside from a few paranoid rants from Republican acquaintances of mine who have never been in any part of Europe). Also, your tort law system sounds awesome and I wish something like it could replace our completely broken civil courts.

According to my father, who has spent some time in the USA, European laws are more relaxed than american laws (not as well enforced, lighter punishments etc.) with only one exception, that being gun control. A normal Swedish person isn't allowed to bear firearms and firearms are extremely rare, expensive and difficult to obtain here (even among criminals).

In essence, I could probably go into town and shout something like "You damned kike bastards! We shold have gassed you all in Auschwitz!" and I probably wouldn't get arrested. Some people might look at me a bit strange if I were to do it, but most people would just not care about it, and neither would the police.

Damn, I've actually been busted by a cop while smoking a joint and the cop just let me go. He was probably just too lazy to take me in or something.

So yeah, the laws here in Sweden are quite relaxed in practice.

Why, and what kind of immigrants?

On a related note, there is a German oi band called Landser, and it is illegal for that band to produce, perform, or distribute their music in Germany. I mean, the fuckin vocalist was put in jail FOR MAKING MUSIC...that's it. Nothing less, nothing more. Obviously that's of no shock to anyone in Europe, given Germany's well-known, particulalrly low-tolerance (Hell, zero tolerance) and completely ridiculous, bullshit "hate-speech" laws. Now, if I remember correctly, isn't that one of the precepts of fascism, controlling free speech? Shouldn't matter if you don't like what they're saying, it should apply to all scenarios. Which brings me to a point over which I've been thinking...

Now, anything related to white power...music, speech, literature, etc. is strictly forbidden in say, Germany for example. Now besides the banning of some of Cannibal Corpse's stuff (perhaps other death or grind or black metal acts, but that's the only one of which I'm aware), I don't believe I know of much truly Satanic black metal that's expressly forbidden to the same degree that WP music is. So basically my point is this...it's ok for a band to proclaim support of, and allegiance to, Satan, I suppose because that may be tied into "freedom of religion". The darkest force known to man, pure evil, the destruction of all things good, all things holy, all things earthly, which to me is the ultimate form of "hate-speech," that's ok to sell to kids...but saying something like "well I don't like Jews and I'm proud to be white etc. etc., is totally taboo. Does that really make sense? No, it doesn't.

This isn't about supporting white power or supporting Satanism, it's the fact that revisionist history, coupled with backwards thinking and asinine, liberal censorhip, have made it ok for people to be exposed to and allowed to consume the messages of pure hate... of all things... in the capacity of black metal and even death metal music, yet it's not ok to do so in regards to RAC or WP music, just because a few certain groups of people don't like it.

Because there is a chance you get busted and fined for saying bad things about immigrants, while you can say pretty much what you want about a Swedish person.

It applies mainly to non-white immigrants, but it applies to a lesser extent to all immigrants except for Norwegians and (to a lesser extent) Germans and Americans. It is rare to see people get busted for saying bad things about white immigrants though, as it mainly applies to non-whites.

I wasn't referring to what I think is and is not okay to say when I made that statement, but mainly as to what is generally accepted and what's more likely to get people in trouble.

There's a big difference between a positive allegiance to a concept or being (Satan) that fewer and fewer Europeans even believe in, much less take seriously, and a negative statement railing against a very real ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or similar group of people. People blathering about Satan do not fall under any sort of hate speech because Satan is a meaningless concept to a secular government.

Plus there's the whole thing about Germany playing host to one of the greatest atrocities in human history, and the massive shame that accompanies that, a shame that will take decades if not centuries to dissipate. The whole German issue of white nationalism makes America's most controversial issues look completely innocuous. It's pretty much inevitable that Germany would be the harshest in prosecuting hate speech.

That's what I thought. It's similar to what I've seen in the dumbfounded pseudo-political correctness of Germany. Sad that the Northern Europeans share this trait as well, specially when stuff like this has happened. It's one of the few things I admire about Americans. They don't hold back (well, some) when denouncing the wrongs of immigrants, unlike the vast majority of Europeans, not only guilt-ridden, self-condemning Germans (taking into account the comment above mine).

If I'm not mistaken, Christianity itself has played host to centuries of atrocities carried out in the name of "good," or what-have-you. And If I'm also not mistaken, the concept of Satan is very real and very serious to a number of people, regardless of whether or not the government takes them serious (I'm obviously referring to people who pointlessly and randomly kill people, animals, in the name of Satan). It doesn't matter whether the people of Europe believe in it, it's the fact that it's a double standard to allow one "bad" message and outlaw another. Even regardless of that concept, I'm getting real tired of this antiquated guilt bullshit...time for it to stop. There's no reason a person should feel guilty about something they didn't do, bottom line. The German people have contributed a great deal of achievements to the advancement of humanity, no reason that should all be overlooked and shame put in its place for the actions of a relatively small group over a half-century ago.

And honestly I'm failing to see where the big difference is that you spoke of.

I hadn't read about that particular aticle in any newspapers over here either. If a Swedish person had done it, the media would be drooling over that stuff. The only newspaper which actually has these kind of articles, the ones that could potentially make people realize that the Swedish system isn't 100% perfect is Proletären, which is the newspaper distributed by the Swedish communist party. The media ignores everything that doesn't match their political standpoint.

Our government actually used to sterilize it's own citizens by force until the 70s. It basically meant people were getting sterilized against their wishes for not being "genetically perfect".

Some of the politicians that used to support this, which is a crime, are still running the show today, 30 years later, since all swedish media ignored this and still do so today.

A lot of this illustrates how retarded the concept of "political correctness" is. Basically, it is wrong to publish anything in the media which might suggest that the politicians in charge are doing anything wrong, unless it's meddling with taxes or state funds. Anything that would go against their vision of a liberal capitalist utopia, which is unrealistic, isn't covered by any media.

And I thought it couldn't get worse with the self-hatred of Swedes. Care to shed some light on this?

Because from a legal standpoint, "Satan" by itself doesn't mean shit. Randomly killing people and animals under the name of Satan is animal cruelty and murder, and prosecuted as such whether you do it for Satan, God, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Gods are myths, people are obviously real (remember that all even vaguely democratic nations have some separation of church and state). Affirming allegiance to a god is therefore not hate speech. Affirming allegiance to your local Neo-Nazi retard brigade might be if you live in a country that recognizes hate speech. Actually insulting and condemning an ethnic group would definitely fall under hate speech legislation. The idea of hate speech is a quite specific one, not just messages that are "bad" by the prevailing moral standards.

Note that actually calling for the commission of or egging on ongoing physical and property crimes against specific groups falls under incitement to violence and is prosecuted not only in Europe but in the United States as well.

As for the guilt bit, I more or less agree with you--for instance, in the often proposed case of reparations for black Americans, I think it is absurd that one group should pay another group for something that happened between their respective distant ancestors 150-400 years ago. But human beings aren't really all that rational (or else Nazism wouldn't have existed in the first place), and this is a much more recent event that happened within the living memory of quite a few people, and the "white power" movement is far from dead.



There's probably not a single significant nation in the Western World ("significant" excludes little city-states like Andorra) that does not have similar skeletons in its closet. A lot of people in America are unaware of America's own dalliances with eugenics (which included sterilization), plus the Tuskegee syphilis experiments, the hideous experiements performed on conscientious objectors during World War II (starving them, infecting them with tuberculosis, etc.), forced sex changes and sterilizations inflicted on homosexuals, racist measures taken against Japanese-Americans above and beyond the wartime internment camps, employers blacklisting alleged Communists, various acts of barbarism that are being committed right now under the aegis of our outgoing president, and other appalling things.

Between the 30s and the late 70s forced sterilization was practiced on people (Swedish citizens) with "undesirable characteristics". These "undesirable characteristics" encompassed a number of mental conditions, such as schizophrenia and a number of different types of "borderline psychosis". This might not have been so bad, but the "undesirable characteristics" also contained people with Aspergers, people who exhibited violent behaviour, people who were just dumb (failed school etc.), drug addicts, people who suffered from clinical depression, and people with varying degrees of mental retardation. Basically, if there was anything wrong with a person whatsoever, there was a chance of getting sterilized by force, so that you should not pass your "undesirable characteristics" on to the next generation.

It says on the Swedish wikipedia that between 25000 and 30000 people were sterilized by force, but this is the lowest number I've seen listed anywhere, with the higher estimates reaching up to 100000 people. It might not seem like a lot, but considering that Sweden only has a population of about 9 million people today, and less back then, I hope you could see how it can be percieved as a lot of people. 90% of the people who got sterilized were women.

Well, sterilisation might be a decent thing considering the increasing number of retards running around (I mean serious retards). Eugenics might seem evil to some egalitarian douchy liberal but they exist for a reason, to protect society overall.

Hate speech laws in Europe are disgusting and the go on to hide the perpetration of atrocities like what's reported in the previousy-mentioned and linked article. I won't even go on about how hypocritical this is because basically hate speech laws not only negate the false impression of ''free speech'' in those countries which practice it but they also go against the people of the country itself. An immigrant can say whatever the fuck they want about a German or Swede or whatever (and most often DO whatever they want and get away with it lightly...in Canada two Haitians raped a woman (not sure of her ethnicity) and got off with 2 months' community work because their society had different ways of considering women...)). But if a German or Swede says something about an immigrant there's hell to pay.

The thing about eugenics that makes me wary is that it's so hard to establish exactly what kind of eugenics is acceptable and what isn't. It seems like a good idea to keep drug addicts, people with mental retardation, and folks who are plain dumb from breeding but what's to keep those who make decisions on eugenics policies from crossing the line? What if they start enacting theories that are, indeed, plain evil? Just giving this sort of thing a foot in the door seems like a terrible idea and I'd be afraid of the door being entirely flung open.

Also, forced sterilization seems like a serious breach of personal liberties. Surely there's something less harsh and more reversible out there.

The Landser vocalist was imprisoned not only for producing racist music but also for illegally owning a shitload of firearms.

Well, if ever allowed it obviously needs to be heavily regulated, only allowing sterilisation to very serious cases and nothing else. I'm not aware of other alternatives though, at least none that don't cost exhorbitant amount of money like keeping concerned people institutionalised and separated between sexes for their whole lives.

Can you provide some links for this? I was under the impression Regener was imprisoned only because of the lyrics in Landsers songs. I have never read or heard anyone make the firearm claim before.



"In the first case of its kind in Germany, a right-wing rock band was deemed a criminal organization and its lead singer was sentenced Monday to more than three years in prison for lyrics that venerate Nazism and incite racial hatred."

http://articles.latimes.com/2003/dec/23/world/fg-hate23




"Distribution of the propaganda of proscribed organizations, statements inciting racial hatred and endorsing Nazism, and denial of the Holocaust are illegal, and the authorities sought to block what they considered dangerous material on the Internet. In March, police nationwide raided over 300 apartments to search for and seize right-wing extremist CDs and other banned music products. The state of Lower Saxony took legal action against some of the growing number of neo-Nazi musical bands in the state, which called for violence or employed xenophobic or racist lyrics. In 2003, members of the Berlin neo-Nazi band "Landser" were convicted of forming a criminal organization and sentenced to terms ranging from 21 months probation to 3 years and 4 months in prison."

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/40258.htm

A shame really as politics aside I some what enjoyed a few Landser songs if not only because I like music with war themed lyrics. I still find myself humming Sturmführer sometimes

Even with heavy regulation, I'm a bit too skeptical of human nature and of governments to ever think that something like this should be allowed in any form. Call me paranoid, if the wrong people get into power, who's to say the criteria for sterilization won't be broadened and some of the heavier regulation won't be lifted without the consent of others?

Also, the only alternative I can think of for women is an IUD. I don't know of an equivalent for men but this seems like a much milder, fairer, and reversible choice.

This wasn't at all how it was carried out IRL though. You could go into a depression or something and get sterilized for that. You could get sterilized just for being a little slow (though you usually didn't). You could get sterilized for living an "asocial lifestyle", which could mean basically anything.

People with Aspergers Syndrome or other similar dysfunctionalities also got sterilized. In 99% of all cases there would be no reasons for this whatsoever.

That's precisely what bothers me.

Me too, that's why I said that is should be heavily regulated and only acted upon after many years of proven constant problems, not if you get a depression or something, or if you're too different. That's not eugenics, that's retardation and the destruction of difference, not of problems.

If I remember correctly I read it in a newspaper article, he was sentenced to a fine because if illegally owning weapons and firearms, including several pistols, a crossbow and an ss-dagger stored in his basement. When he appeared in court because of the racist music, this matter was taken up again and Landser was declared a criminal organization. They were also told to be close connected with the KKK. There was a picture of Michael Regener (the vocalist) posing with several people wearing white robes.

I can't find a "physical" source right now, maybe I'll go for it later.

The main problem with eugenics seems to be the implementation. Should it be used as a means of preventing those with "inferior" genetics from reproducing, or should parents be allowed to select those gametes which are most likely to result in a healthy, viable individual? The problem with the former is that we live in a democratic society that is largely uninformed with regard to genetics. A decision by the voting populace would almost certainly be misinformed and as a result, highly unethical. Letting the politicians decide would probably be an equally bad idea because of how many competing interests they have. And selecting a group of elite scientists to do so would not sit well with the majority who would, rightly, be offended that their voices were not heard in something as important as this.

Perhaps the other type of eugenics, in which parents - advised by their doctors - could choose to eliminate disease genes, would be more effective. After all, there is no government mandate to abort if you become pregnant, and the choice is entirely the parents'. This would be analogous to selecting the baby-sitter, diet, and elementary school for one's child. But what is a gene were discovered that, for instance, coded for an increased likelihood of superstitious belief? Should Christian parents be allowed to select children on the basis of this gene?

The gene selection should be done only on the basis of disease prevention, not on a build-your-own-child system of selecting everything.

Giving the general populace the power of a referendum concerning eugenics would be a huge mistake because the masses are too easily swayed with simplistic messages: most of them would understand nothing and they'd vote for what they THINK is the best, not for what is truly the best for them. But then again, that's the problem with democracy itself.

Ah ok, well if you ever find it toss it in here as I am interested to read it. I have read countless articles about Landser and the criminal charges but have never heard anything about illegal firearm possession.

Secular democracy (or republic, as in the case of the US) is the most successful form of government invented so far, so let's give credit where it is due. Despite the rather monumental problem that you mentioned, it still somehow tends to work out (most of the time), especially compared to the variety of alternatives.

If gene selection is used to eliminate disease genes, why not take it one step further? If you've got one gene variant which has a 70% chance of bestowing sub-average IQ to your child and another which has the same chance of granting him an IQ of 120, wouldn't that be worth selecting for? If I, as a parent, want the best for my children, why should I only leave him disease-free, but utterly average in all other respects? Why shouldn't I grant him intelligence, stamina, and patience (if genes for these traits are discovered)?

Because taking it one step further makes it endless: everyone will be jumping around to get better and better selecting for their kids until everyone's damned near perfect (which in a way might be interesting) but it would also affect competition to a certain degree. But selection of superior genes might be an interesting thing, i suppose it could help humanity advance if used wisely...but therein lies the problem. Wisely.

As for democracy, the corruption it allows disgusts me. People in democracies tend to have better lives from an economic standpoint (most of them...) when compared to say, communism or absolute religious monarchies but I'm interested in the pursuit of the same ideal of government which the Enlightenment philosopher Voltaire thought was the ONLY way for society to advance: Enlightened despotism (monarchies which are based on moderate rulers who follow the ideals of the Enlightenment (religios freedom, general liberties including of the press, etc.)). If monarchs are well educated and prepared we'd avoid idiots becoming power-hungry maniacs and such a system could work.

A good example of this is Prussia during Frederick the Great's rule.

So what if it's endless? We are endlessly enveloping in technology every aspect of our lives: singling it out as an exception should have a good reason. This technology is actually quite likely to occur at some point in the near future. Although I am not a utopian by any means, this might improve the quality of the human gene pool with regard to aggressive impulses, dementia, depression, paranoia, etc. Perhaps these people will become megalomaniacally sinister, but chances are, a positive result is just as foreseeable.



My intuition runs counter to yours. I don't believe there is any evidence that democratic countries are more corrupt than despotic ones.
Here is the 2006 Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index. Most of the democratic states seem to be near the top of the list, while the despotic ones occupy mostly the lower half. A few key exceptions are Afghanistan and Iraq, which are warzones though technically democratic. Now, look at Russia: it's way down at #143, tied with Gambia, Indonesia, Togo (I've never even heard of this one), and Nigeria. It seems like the best real-life example of such a benevolent despotism. A man who is well-educated, ex-intelligence agency, charismatic, and wields a great deal of power. Yet corruption is horrible in Russia.

You might reply that, oh, he doesn't aspire to Enlightenment ideals, true. But assuming that you did set up a system like that, what would happen when someone like Putin came to power?



I'm not familiar with that example. Could you elaborate? How did he come to power, how did he change conditions in Prussia, and what happened after he lost power/died?

Frederick the Great was an able statesman, suceeding his father who was a more militarily oriented king. Frederick preferred things such as the arts, becoming an important patron of artists and philosophers, as well as promoting religious freedom. He was a contemporary of Voltaire's, communicating with each other through letters.

This isn't to say that he wasn't a skilled military commander, indeed he proved his amazing skills as a tactician at the battles of Rossbach and Hohenfriedberg. Napoleon himself, when he entered Berlin over half a century later, went to Frederick's tomb and told his field marshals that had he (Frederick) been alive, none of them would be there then in Berlin.

To me that's a good example of a succesfull statesman who ran a free and prosperous nation, although I'm not sure of the level of corruption in the sense of the word as it's understood today.

As for democracy's corruption today I refer not to cheap obvious corruption such as what's going on in Eastern Europe or Africa where politicians blatantly steal state property. I mean structural corruption, where a nation's interests are held in an inferior position to the interests of a small, financially powerful and thereby politically powerful group which controls media and therefore decides which issues are made important during elections as opposed to what they don't want discussed, such as the destruction of Western States' economies in favor of Asian nations such as China.

I'm beyond bothered that you didn't answer about what happened after Frederick died. The legacy he left immediately after he left power is as important as anything else he did during his entire reign.

You know, you could just have elucidated upon it instead of saying that...

True, but I was hoping he'd share something with more depth than the wikipedia entries on Frederick the Great and his immediate successors. I skimmed over it and there didn't seem to be much said about the aftermath of his reign except that his nephew took over. This nephew didn't seem to have the same power but he did alright. Stuff went haywire after the nephew's death but I'm not sure if that was entirely his fault or his uncles (especially as the French Revolution was going on just then).

His successors were pretty successful until the early 19th century when almost all of Europe was overrun by Napoleon (who respected Frederick greatly) and, after Napoleon's defeat, Prussia pretty much continued on the same path as before until the German Unification and the militarist tendencies which marked the Second Reich. What I'm trying to say is that everything didn't just fall apart after Frederick's death.

Exellent point sir, I have been saying this for years. We're lucky to live in America, were I can say, "The holocaust never happened" and I won't be jailed. But thats coming soon to an end as well, thanks to Obama and his hate speech laws. We can thank the Jews for this (actually, maybe Nazi Germany or Hitler in General?) censorship in europe as they have their "holocaust trump card." Anything that has to do with NSBM in germany, austria, canada, and a few other places is strictly considered hate speech, not as it should be: the right of FREE speach! (sp?)

I don't think there's a lack of outspokenly NSBM bands in the UK because of laws but because of the overall politically correct climate which to me is the product of multiculturalism. NSBM bands generally wouldn't go down well here given the socio-political context. But then again it depends where in the country they're from. But I can name no openly NS black metal bands around today. As in, nobody who makes National Socialism part of their band's manifesto, regardless of what their personal beliefs are.

I'm pretty sure that there are a hell of a lot of (white) brits who are pissed off about that same multiculturalism. That said, maybe they're just intelligent enough to avoid spreading their ideas in a radical and self-destructive way.

Blood and Honour still pulls a good 1000 at their larger events in the U.K, so it's not like the United Kingdom is a shining beacon of antifa.

The lack of NSBM there is quite interesting though.

In my view this is a good thing. While I do think that bands like Landser should be allowed to say what they say, I'm not going to care much if they get chucked into jail.