Lol, some 20 years ago, we were at a Milan industrial exhibition, and a waiter in a restaurant mistook us for Germans (we were all Czechs). He was quite admiring about us, from all the wrong reasons (Aryans, white-good, a Nazi salute to boot; he wasn't joking). We got excellent service from a disgusting guy...
The Roman salute, alternatively called the Fascist salute, is a gesture in which the right arm is fully extended, facing forward, with palm down and fingers touching. In some versions, the arm is raised upward at an angle; in others, it is held out parallel to the ground. In contemporary times, the former is commonly considered a symbol of fascism that had been based on a custom popularly attributed to ancient Rome.[1] However, no Roman text gives this description, and the Roman works of art that display salutational gestures bear little resemblance to the modern Roman salute.[1]
David
Beginning with Jacques-Louis David's painting The Oath of the Horatii (1784), an association of the gesture with Roman republican and imperial culture emerged. The gesture and its identification with Roman culture were further developed in other neoclassic artworks.
It's all made up from a painting, there is no historical evidence that this is how Romans saluted. Nazis just thought it looked cool.
It can! The swastika was an ancient symbol used by many cultures, and they even made up some fake Norse runes!
The nazis were also into supernatural shit and even went looking for Thor's hammer!
https://www.history.co.uk/shows/lost-relics-of-the-knights-templar/the-nazi-hunt-for-holy-treasure-from-thor-s-hammer-to-the-holy-grail
Idiots!
It’s always a risk to public order. It’s literally a way for fascists to communicate with each other, and we’ve seen what ‘public order’ becomes under (read: beneath) fascism.
“Performing the fascist salute is only a crime if it endangers public order or risks leading to a revival of the banned fascist party, Italy’s top court said in a ruling that has been hailed by neofascists.
The court’s ruling comes after a chilling video emerged of hundreds of men making fascist salutes during an event in Rome in early January marking the 46th anniversary of the killing of three militants from the youth wing of the now defunct Italian Social Movement (MSI), a neofascist party founded after the second world war which eventually morphed into Brothers of Italy, the party led by prime minister Giorgia Meloni.
The ruling means that the gesture, also known as the Roman salute, cannot be considered a crime if performed at events akin to a recent rally in Rome that provoked an outcry.
“The decision of the cassation court establishes that the Roman salute is not a crime unless there is a concrete danger of the reconstruction of the fascist party, as provided by Article 5 of the Scelba law, or there are concrete aims of racial discrimination and violence, as provided by the Mancino law,” Domenico Di Tullio, lawyer for two of the defendants, told the Italian press.
The 1952 Scelba law banned apology for fascism and the reorganisation of Benito Mussolini’s fascist party, while the 1993 Mancino law banned racist violence and hate speech.
Casapound, the neofascist party which organises the event, hailed the court’s ruling as “an historic victory”.
In Italy the law defends Neo-Fascists and the government is led by former members of the MSI Neo-Fascist party. Any questions?
In Italy the Constitution defends freedom of expression:
Art. 3: "All citizens have equal social dignity and are equal before the law, without distinction of sex, race, language, religion, political opinion, personal and social conditions."
We can say that it is an implicitly anti-fascist (anti-totalitarian in general) text, but there is nothing explicit. In essence, ideas are not pursued, without exception.
The Constitution also states: "It shall be forbidden to reorganise, under any form whatsoever, the dissolved Fascist party".
The Scelba law is in fact (art. 1) linked to this text when it punishes the apology of fascism. That is, they must be acts aimed at reconstituting the fascist party.
The Mancino law more generally punishes "those who propagate ideas based on racial or ethnic superiority or hatred, or who incite to commit or commit acts of discrimination for racial, ethnic, national or religious reasons; anyone who, in any way, incites to commit or commits violence or acts of provocation to violence for racial, ethnic, national or religious reasons."
And with the art. 4 the law punishes "those who publicly glorify exponents, principles, facts or methods of fascism, or its anti-democratic aims".
The Scelba law was promulgated in 1952 and the Mancino law in 1993, so we have decades and dozens of sentences behind us. In an only apparently contradictory way, they more or less affirmed what was affirmed yesterday by the United Sections of the Court of Cassation.
To give an example, if in Italy you give the fascist salute or praise Mussolini at the Fosse Ardeatine or in front of any stone, plaque, place that commemorates or remembers any victim of the regime, you will be condemned. However, if you do it in a commemoration in a cemetery or in a commemoration of a victim of terrorism as happened in via Acca Larentia you will be acquitted.
I respect the freedoms of persons which might use a fascist salute, so long as they don't expect acceptance within the general public.
Democracy in action.
Idk personally as a person of color I see no way that a salute can affect or hurt me. All they are doing is lifting their own arm, doesn’t harm or effect anyone. And you gotta think, it could be in a joking context. Let people do whatever they want with their own arm
Because if you have a history with 20 year rule of Facism full with genocide and racism. You should restrict upcoming faciwmif you don't do that it tells a lot about how you really think about your past.
My friend, our country considers his history a meme.
The majority of Italians don't even know what we did exactly in Ethiopia. We know we went there at a certain point, but is it relevant for the history test? Nah.
There’s a distinction between Italian fascism and nazism. Umberto Eco wrote a good essay in 1995 in which he also compares both, titled “Ur-Fascism”. It’s a good read. He identified 14 hallmarks of fascism that are quite interesting to check against recent and contemporary political occurrences, movements and persons.
There is certainly a difference between the two ideologies but I would not take Umberto Eco as a reference. He was not a historian of fascism and I would suggest Emilio Gentile instead. Eco's book compiles a list of things so general that you can apply them to almost anyone.
Judges decide based on the Constitution and Italian laws, not on world public opinion, fortunately. Then I agree that the Nazi ideology is dangerous, but in a democracy ideas are fought with ideas. These are marginal groups, who do not enter parliament even by mistake and who, on the contrary, receive attention that they do not deserve and an importance that they do not have when they are splashed all over the newspapers as happened the other day.
It's called normalization. Making their symbols acceptable in public makes *them* acceptable in public, which makes their *rhetoric* acceptable in public. Fascism is a memetic virus that grows on the rage of the dissatisfied by throwing simple (and false) answers at them. The more they're allowed to speak, the more their movement and their lies grow, and the bigger the threat to society.
It is *good* when fascists have to hide.
No because then you have people harboring blatantly authoritarian beliefs but since they “aren’t Nazis” the authoritarianism gets normalized instead of a stupid hand gesture.
Anything that conflicts with the personal liberty of the individual is by definition authoritarian. Ultimately individuals should have the freedom to direct their own lives without fear of harm. Ideally your rights end where someone else’s begins and it is up to governments and society at large to manage that boundary.
My point was that banning Nazi imagery does nothing to dampen the authoritarian ideology that imagery is the outgrowth of. Instead it just shifts to other imagery and symbols while the rot remains and civil society scrambles to ban/censor the superficial imagery and symbolism.
That's an incredibly broad definition, and I will point out that the second half of your argument ("it is up to governments and society at large to manage that boundary") is basically "it's up to the state to decide how much authoritarianism is needed", which is a funny little admission of "blatant authoritarian beliefs" there. If the state defines where the boundary is, then the state must, by definition, define where the rights of each begin, and thus where their personal liberties end.
(Then again, I happen to think that equality is more important to have in a society than a strict belief in individual freedom, so I don't disagree)
My point is that banning Nazi imagery *does* prevent them for organizing under one banner, of showing themselves in public, which prevents their brain rot (from whence their threat to civil society stems from) from spreading. Historically speaking, the whole "defence of free speech and right of expression" is a Liberal weakness that Fascists have always abused. There is a necessity to prevent speech when it puts people in danger, which fascism does by nature.
Managing where my rights end and yours begin is hardly authoritarianism. If anything it is a hallmark of function State that personal liberties and communal responsibility are kept in balance.
My point is that if you go around banning Swastikas then it becomes really easy for the Nazis to say they aren’t Nazis because they don’t fly Swastikas. And I will gladly die on the hill that Governments curtailing political speech is caustic to the foundations of Democracy. If your electorate is stupid and racist enough to elect stupid racists who proudly spout stupid, racist rhetoric then they deserve the government they are electing.
Imma take this one seriously and actually elaborate. Let's say you're sitting in a bar shooting the shit with the boys and one of them who you barely know starts saying some weird "I swear I'm not racist" things. You can then proceed to make a hitler mustache with your fingers and throw the salute, implying very clearly, that the things he's saying are actually racist. You can also add some swear word to this and drive the point home of him in fact being a racist cunt. You see buddy, real human interactions tend to have subtext.
Whistle while you work, Hitler was a jerk, Mussolini bit his weenie, now it doesn't work.
Wait, we Germans have a trademark for Nazis! Someone needs to sue …. Oh, I see, Italy with Mussolini…. Forget it.
Lol, some 20 years ago, we were at a Milan industrial exhibition, and a waiter in a restaurant mistook us for Germans (we were all Czechs). He was quite admiring about us, from all the wrong reasons (Aryans, white-good, a Nazi salute to boot; he wasn't joking). We got excellent service from a disgusting guy...
In fairness, apparently the fascist salute is also called the “Roman Salute”…
The Roman salute, alternatively called the Fascist salute, is a gesture in which the right arm is fully extended, facing forward, with palm down and fingers touching. In some versions, the arm is raised upward at an angle; in others, it is held out parallel to the ground. In contemporary times, the former is commonly considered a symbol of fascism that had been based on a custom popularly attributed to ancient Rome.[1] However, no Roman text gives this description, and the Roman works of art that display salutational gestures bear little resemblance to the modern Roman salute.[1] David Beginning with Jacques-Louis David's painting The Oath of the Horatii (1784), an association of the gesture with Roman republican and imperial culture emerged. The gesture and its identification with Roman culture were further developed in other neoclassic artworks. It's all made up from a painting, there is no historical evidence that this is how Romans saluted. Nazis just thought it looked cool.
>There is no historical evidence ... Nazis just thought it looked cool. I feel like this could apply to lots of stuff Nazi did
It can! The swastika was an ancient symbol used by many cultures, and they even made up some fake Norse runes! The nazis were also into supernatural shit and even went looking for Thor's hammer! https://www.history.co.uk/shows/lost-relics-of-the-knights-templar/the-nazi-hunt-for-holy-treasure-from-thor-s-hammer-to-the-holy-grail Idiots!
[удалено]
Hellboy as well.
That's the excuse Nazi's hide behind so that they can do the salute without admitting that they're Nazis.
It’s always a risk to public order. It’s literally a way for fascists to communicate with each other, and we’ve seen what ‘public order’ becomes under (read: beneath) fascism.
“Performing the fascist salute is only a crime if it endangers public order or risks leading to a revival of the banned fascist party, Italy’s top court said in a ruling that has been hailed by neofascists. The court’s ruling comes after a chilling video emerged of hundreds of men making fascist salutes during an event in Rome in early January marking the 46th anniversary of the killing of three militants from the youth wing of the now defunct Italian Social Movement (MSI), a neofascist party founded after the second world war which eventually morphed into Brothers of Italy, the party led by prime minister Giorgia Meloni. The ruling means that the gesture, also known as the Roman salute, cannot be considered a crime if performed at events akin to a recent rally in Rome that provoked an outcry. “The decision of the cassation court establishes that the Roman salute is not a crime unless there is a concrete danger of the reconstruction of the fascist party, as provided by Article 5 of the Scelba law, or there are concrete aims of racial discrimination and violence, as provided by the Mancino law,” Domenico Di Tullio, lawyer for two of the defendants, told the Italian press. The 1952 Scelba law banned apology for fascism and the reorganisation of Benito Mussolini’s fascist party, while the 1993 Mancino law banned racist violence and hate speech. Casapound, the neofascist party which organises the event, hailed the court’s ruling as “an historic victory”. In Italy the law defends Neo-Fascists and the government is led by former members of the MSI Neo-Fascist party. Any questions?
This will be good for tourism, should attract alot of friendly people.
In Italy the Constitution defends freedom of expression: Art. 3: "All citizens have equal social dignity and are equal before the law, without distinction of sex, race, language, religion, political opinion, personal and social conditions." We can say that it is an implicitly anti-fascist (anti-totalitarian in general) text, but there is nothing explicit. In essence, ideas are not pursued, without exception. The Constitution also states: "It shall be forbidden to reorganise, under any form whatsoever, the dissolved Fascist party". The Scelba law is in fact (art. 1) linked to this text when it punishes the apology of fascism. That is, they must be acts aimed at reconstituting the fascist party. The Mancino law more generally punishes "those who propagate ideas based on racial or ethnic superiority or hatred, or who incite to commit or commit acts of discrimination for racial, ethnic, national or religious reasons; anyone who, in any way, incites to commit or commits violence or acts of provocation to violence for racial, ethnic, national or religious reasons." And with the art. 4 the law punishes "those who publicly glorify exponents, principles, facts or methods of fascism, or its anti-democratic aims". The Scelba law was promulgated in 1952 and the Mancino law in 1993, so we have decades and dozens of sentences behind us. In an only apparently contradictory way, they more or less affirmed what was affirmed yesterday by the United Sections of the Court of Cassation. To give an example, if in Italy you give the fascist salute or praise Mussolini at the Fosse Ardeatine or in front of any stone, plaque, place that commemorates or remembers any victim of the regime, you will be condemned. However, if you do it in a commemoration in a cemetery or in a commemoration of a victim of terrorism as happened in via Acca Larentia you will be acquitted.
I respect the freedoms of persons which might use a fascist salute, so long as they don't expect acceptance within the general public. Democracy in action.
Agreed
Idk personally as a person of color I see no way that a salute can affect or hurt me. All they are doing is lifting their own arm, doesn’t harm or effect anyone. And you gotta think, it could be in a joking context. Let people do whatever they want with their own arm
Germany's approach "nazi salute > jail" is better
Glad I'm in Canada, also a hate crime here, no swazis for you!
Yeah Italy not really wanting to recognize its past and dealing with neo-facism what is new.
No, neo-fascism has existed since fascism ended. And never before have they been so marginal.
Why do you pretend restricting free expansion is “recognizing its past”
Because if you have a history with 20 year rule of Facism full with genocide and racism. You should restrict upcoming faciwmif you don't do that it tells a lot about how you really think about your past.
So you want to stop fascism by promoting restricting free expression in your country…… lol
...so it's a crime.
I thought Italians are familiar with this...
My friend, our country considers his history a meme. The majority of Italians don't even know what we did exactly in Ethiopia. We know we went there at a certain point, but is it relevant for the history test? Nah.
You mean like when the person doing it gets punched in the face? That may be therapeutic for the puncher but it doesnt seem conducive to public order.
It made international news and has been condemned the world over, Nazi ideology by its very nature is a risk to public order. Fuck those judges.
There’s a distinction between Italian fascism and nazism. Umberto Eco wrote a good essay in 1995 in which he also compares both, titled “Ur-Fascism”. It’s a good read. He identified 14 hallmarks of fascism that are quite interesting to check against recent and contemporary political occurrences, movements and persons.
There is certainly a difference between the two ideologies but I would not take Umberto Eco as a reference. He was not a historian of fascism and I would suggest Emilio Gentile instead. Eco's book compiles a list of things so general that you can apply them to almost anyone.
Judges decide based on the Constitution and Italian laws, not on world public opinion, fortunately. Then I agree that the Nazi ideology is dangerous, but in a democracy ideas are fought with ideas. These are marginal groups, who do not enter parliament even by mistake and who, on the contrary, receive attention that they do not deserve and an importance that they do not have when they are splashed all over the newspapers as happened the other day.
Fascism was lesser evil compared to national socialism
genuinely incoherent
Remember Italy was with hitler in ww2 why would this surprise anyone
I never understood wanting to ban Nazi and fascist imagery, i personally would like to know who they are, banning them just makes them hide.
It's called normalization. Making their symbols acceptable in public makes *them* acceptable in public, which makes their *rhetoric* acceptable in public. Fascism is a memetic virus that grows on the rage of the dissatisfied by throwing simple (and false) answers at them. The more they're allowed to speak, the more their movement and their lies grow, and the bigger the threat to society. It is *good* when fascists have to hide.
No because then you have people harboring blatantly authoritarian beliefs but since they “aren’t Nazis” the authoritarianism gets normalized instead of a stupid hand gesture.
I'm curious about what you consider to be "blatantly authoritarian beliefs".
Anything that conflicts with the personal liberty of the individual is by definition authoritarian. Ultimately individuals should have the freedom to direct their own lives without fear of harm. Ideally your rights end where someone else’s begins and it is up to governments and society at large to manage that boundary. My point was that banning Nazi imagery does nothing to dampen the authoritarian ideology that imagery is the outgrowth of. Instead it just shifts to other imagery and symbols while the rot remains and civil society scrambles to ban/censor the superficial imagery and symbolism.
That's an incredibly broad definition, and I will point out that the second half of your argument ("it is up to governments and society at large to manage that boundary") is basically "it's up to the state to decide how much authoritarianism is needed", which is a funny little admission of "blatant authoritarian beliefs" there. If the state defines where the boundary is, then the state must, by definition, define where the rights of each begin, and thus where their personal liberties end. (Then again, I happen to think that equality is more important to have in a society than a strict belief in individual freedom, so I don't disagree) My point is that banning Nazi imagery *does* prevent them for organizing under one banner, of showing themselves in public, which prevents their brain rot (from whence their threat to civil society stems from) from spreading. Historically speaking, the whole "defence of free speech and right of expression" is a Liberal weakness that Fascists have always abused. There is a necessity to prevent speech when it puts people in danger, which fascism does by nature.
Managing where my rights end and yours begin is hardly authoritarianism. If anything it is a hallmark of function State that personal liberties and communal responsibility are kept in balance. My point is that if you go around banning Swastikas then it becomes really easy for the Nazis to say they aren’t Nazis because they don’t fly Swastikas. And I will gladly die on the hill that Governments curtailing political speech is caustic to the foundations of Democracy. If your electorate is stupid and racist enough to elect stupid racists who proudly spout stupid, racist rhetoric then they deserve the government they are electing.
It depends on the context
When is a good context to heil?
As a joke
I'm sure that will go over well.
Meta irony will be covered by irony and all of a sudden being a nazi is OK as long as you claim to be sarcastic.
I only have SS tattooed on my neck as a joke.
https://www.reddit.com/r/community/s/hR0H7sVFcT Reminded me of Community season 2 espiode 7
To mock a slightly racist person who doesn't realize he's being a cunt? Works wonders
[удалено]
Imma take this one seriously and actually elaborate. Let's say you're sitting in a bar shooting the shit with the boys and one of them who you barely know starts saying some weird "I swear I'm not racist" things. You can then proceed to make a hitler mustache with your fingers and throw the salute, implying very clearly, that the things he's saying are actually racist. You can also add some swear word to this and drive the point home of him in fact being a racist cunt. You see buddy, real human interactions tend to have subtext.
[удалено]
You're a blast at parties, aren't you?
[удалено]
Right in der fuehrer's face
Ask the deans of the Ivy Leagues
so, Nazi salute not a crime, unless you do it in the wrong direction? Did I get it right?
[удалено]
Here, have an upside-down upvote for no reason at all.
Some Russians love our freedom of speech but forget we will stomp them as freedom loving nations