Amazon backtracks after covering NYC subway car in Nazi symbols

"Man in the High Castle" campaign pulled after one day on 42nd Street MTA shuttle.

Read the whole story

 

[ligne]

dansplosion[/url]":1b9i2nae]Too bad Amazon caved, I hate it when people silence things just because they don't agree with them.

Now, off to join the downvote brigade so all comments in this thread that think the ad was inappropriate are hidden.

i honestly can't tell if you're being satirical or oblivious.

 

[adipose]

ligne[/url]"s8xftot]

dansplosion[/url]"s8xftot]Too bad Amazon caved, I hate it when people silence things just because they don't agree with them.

Now, off to join the downvote brigade so all comments in this thread that think the ad was inappropriate are hidden.

i honestly can't tell if you're being satirical or oblivious.

Gotta be satire, or at least a karmic thought.

 

[dansplosion]

ligne[/url]":1syvx71e]

dansplosion[/url]":1syvx71e]Too bad Amazon caved, I hate it when people silence things just because they don't agree with them.

Now, off to join the downvote brigade so all comments in this thread that think the ad was inappropriate are hidden.

i honestly can't tell if you're being satirical or oblivious.

Does it have to be "or"?
Yes I guess it does. Satirical, though it makes me sad to have to write it. It's like explaining a joke.

 

[bglick4]

People need to stop being offended by every little thing. These are symbols of evil regimes free people kicked into the dustbin of history. We bastardize their hallowed symbols for ads for a TV show. Those who have been impacted by these evil regimes should look at these ads and smile, being again reminded of the utter and complete destruction of these regimes.

 

[Deleted member 192806]

bglick4[/url]":10ouyijb]People need to stop being offended by every little thing.

Can anyone draw up a list? So we can be on the same page.

 

[arkiel]

Ostracus[/url]":1j7vdi3r]

bglick4[/url]":1j7vdi3r]People need to stop being offended by every little thing.

Can anyone draw up a list? So we can be on the same page.

Like, if you want to freak out about Nazi symbols, maybe make sure they're Nazi symbols? Try to freak out about stuff that is some sufficient value of 'real' so you don't end up looking like a closeted fuckwit that couldn't even bother to Google the thing about which he or she is taking offense to.

Imperialist Japanese flag... maybe there's a point to freaking out about that.

 

[D-Fresh]

PhilGil[/url]":1orf8v2b]

Ten Wind[/url]":1orf8v2b]
Anne Frankly you don't get much more Nazi than that.

Boo, I did not see that pun coming.

Apparently you also did nazi that brilliant opportunity for a another pun

 

[ligne]

arkiel[/url]":ujvpvubn]

Ostracus[/url]":ujvpvubn]

bglick4[/url]":ujvpvubn]People need to stop being offended by every little thing.

Can anyone draw up a list? So we can be on the same page.

Like, if you want to freak out about Nazi symbols, maybe make sure they're Nazi symbols? Try to freak out about stuff that is some sufficient value of 'real' so you don't end up looking like a closeted fuckwit that couldn't even bother to Google the thing about which he or she is taking offense to.

as several people have pointed out already:

this is an advert for a show about Nazis taking over the USA. the resemblance between these symbols and Nazi imagery is undoubtedly intentional, because that is literally the point the ad campaign designers are making.

 

[dawgmeister]

As I understand only the Swastika in a particular orientation is a problem which is why Reichsadler symbol in the promotional material replaced the swastika with an Iron Cross.

The symbols in isolation itself may not be a problem. The post WW2 Reichsadler (the imperial eagle) and The Iron Cross are still in use today although in different variations. The Iron Cross itself is still a marker on the planes of the modern Luftwaffe.

However, the average person will fail to see the difference between Symbols that were/are part of Germany pre- and post-Third Reich and the symbols used by the Third Reich itself. Additionally the particular version of the Reichsadler used in the Amazon promotion is too close to the Third Reich version.

The other obvious reason being the NY demographics - a lot of them who might have endured that phase in history and survived or who have a parent or a grandparent that suffered in there.

 

[bglick4]

ganjadude43[/url]":17c6dv81]


let me preface with im an atheist.

now that that is out of the way you are aware that the first crusades were christians defending themselves from the new sect (at the time)called islam right????

I guess it depends on how you look at it. If you look at the Crusades as move to reclaim land once held by the Roman empire, than sure call it self defense. Of course, that would be like calling a British invasion of the US today self defense. The justification given for the Crusades and the real reasons for them and all the rest of that history is very interesting and helped to shape our world today, so it has importance. However, it's nonsense to somehow excuse jihad for actions of western warlords 500 years ago. Most of the world has progressed a lot in that time. The crusades would be condemned universally today. The US denounced forced conversions in her constitution 220 some years ago and the rest of the Western world has followed. I wish the Muslim world would make similar progress.

 

[PhilGil]

D-Fresh[/url]":2s1bmpik]

PhilGil[/url]":2s1bmpik]

Ten Wind[/url]":2s1bmpik]
Anne Frankly you don't get much more Nazi than that.

Boo, I did not see that pun coming.

Apparently you also did nazi that brilliant opportunity for a another pun

My phrasing was completely intentional. Thank you for noticing .

 

[bglick4]

Ostracus[/url]":35zm88ni]

bglick4[/url]":35zm88ni]People need to stop being offended by every little thing.

Can anyone draw up a list? So we can be on the same page.

Here's the list:

Can be offended at:
a deliberate attempt to insult or disparage without merit. It's a choice here, but at least offense is justified.

Shouldn't be offended at:
Everything else.

 

[arkiel]

ligne[/url]":82fk9pyk]

arkiel[/url]":82fk9pyk]

Ostracus[/url]":82fk9pyk]

bglick4[/url]":82fk9pyk]People need to stop being offended by every little thing.

Can anyone draw up a list? So we can be on the same page.

Like, if you want to freak out about Nazi symbols, maybe make sure they're Nazi symbols? Try to freak out about stuff that is some sufficient value of 'real' so you don't end up looking like a closeted fuckwit that couldn't even bother to Google the thing about which he or she is taking offense to.

as several people have pointed out already:

this is an advert for a show about Nazis taking over the USA. the resemblance between these symbols and Nazi imagery is undoubtedly intentional, because that is literally the point the ad campaign designers are making.

And yet there is still a distinction between the swastika and the iron cross. If you freak out about either

(1) the presence of "Nazi" symbols

or, if you have an awareness of the show,

(2) the fact that a show which depicts Nazis as antagonists taking over the United States is being advertised by use of imagery that isn't actually Nazi,

then you (not ligne, -anyone-), are a little pisspants that probably shouldn't be riding the subway in the first place, lest your delicate nervous condition trigger a bout of explosive pants-pissing (which is evidently endemic to the NYC subway system).

 

[oxHanoverxo]

It's about as offensive as an episode of Hogan's Heroes...

 

[ligne]

isparavanje[/url]":1nxjxcm9]I just disagree with whoever who thinks they think something should be removed because it could be offensive to others. We don't need to be second guessing what is offensive to whom, if someone is offended they will speak up.

up to a point? if it's sufficiently extreme or pervasive, those most directly affected might prefer to stay silent because they fear the backlash if they speak up. if they're a member of an already marginalised group, they might simply find they're ignored even if they do.

(i'm not saying that's the case here, i'm talking in general terms.)

 

[ligne]

bglick4[/url]":gq275rvm]

Ostracus[/url]":gq275rvm]

bglick4[/url]":gq275rvm]People need to stop being offended by every little thing.

Can anyone draw up a list? So we can be on the same page.

Here's the list:

Can be offended at:
a deliberate attempt to insult or disparage without merit. It's a choice here, but at least offense is justified.

Shouldn't be offended at:
Everything else.

you mustn't be upset if someone makes a hurtful remark out of tactlessness or ignorance? i'm not sure that's quite how offence works....

 

[ligne]

dansplosion[/url]":3purvad3]

ligne[/url]":3purvad3]

dansplosion[/url]":3purvad3]Too bad Amazon caved, I hate it when people silence things just because they don't agree with them.

Now, off to join the downvote brigade so all comments in this thread that think the ad was inappropriate are hidden.

i honestly can't tell if you're being satirical or oblivious.

Does it have to be "or"?
Yes I guess it does.

by definition, i think

Satirical, though it makes me sad to have to write it. It's like explaining a joke.

sorry for missing it. unfortunately this subject always seems to bring out this sort of weirdly self-contradictory fundamentalism, so chalk another one up to Poe's Law i guess?

 

[Eurynom0s]

심돌산[/url]":3ggt0zw8]

Jordan Orlando[/url]":3ggt0zw8]

Modern Major General Thanatos[/url]":3ggt0zw8]

Jordan Orlando[/url]":3ggt0zw8]

harteman[/url]":3ggt0zw8]We should stop catering to these vocal few who have nothing better to do than bitch.

I'm trying very hard to control my temper. I've been participating in civil Ars discussions for years, and it's a point of pride that I've never lost my temper or insulted anyone. But you people complaining about the objections and to the ads being removed have to step back. Right now. Take a second and think about what you're saying; you really don't want to be saying it.

It's different when it is your sacred cow, isn't it?

Different from what? Was there some other context in which I turned a blind eye to someone's injury?

I'm not even Jewish; I'm just a New Yorker and and American and I don't want Nazi flags on my subway cars if people object to them.

There weren't any Nazi flags on New York subway cars.

Let me add this: I'm a Jewish American. My family was largely wiped out by the Holocaust. The only things I find offensive are people like this guy being against free speech, and presuming to be offended on my behalf. I didn't know I wasn't capable of standing up for myself, thank god this guy showed up to do it for me.

Not that I think my being Jewish should give my opinion any special weight here, but it seemed worth mentioning considering this jackass is so concerned with trying to stick up for me.

 

[isparavanje]

ligne[/url]":3ugfr55z]

isparavanje[/url]":3ugfr55z]I just disagree with whoever who thinks they think something should be removed because it could be offensive to others. We don't need to be second guessing what is offensive to whom, if someone is offended they will speak up.

up to a point? if it's sufficiently extreme or pervasive, those most directly affected might prefer to stay silent because they fear the backlash if they speak up. if they're a member of an already marginalised group, they might simply find they're ignored even if they do.

(i'm not saying that's the case here, i'm talking in general terms.)

Yeah I don't think we should be harsh about it. Honestly, the best scenario would be if no one even thinks about such stuff, such that no one has any opinion either way, leaving marginalized groups to voice their opinions as they wish while no one else is pretending to be offended on their behalf.

That fine balance is unlikely to ever be achieved, but hey, a man can dream. Also I think there's no question that we've erred way too far towards the "censor all the non-progressives" side.

 

[bglick4]

ligne[/url]":33j1xvtk]

bglick4[/url]":33j1xvtk]

Ostracus[/url]":33j1xvtk]

bglick4[/url]":33j1xvtk]People need to stop being offended by every little thing.

Can anyone draw up a list? So we can be on the same page.

Here's the list:

Can be offended at:
a deliberate attempt to insult or disparage without merit. It's a choice here, but at least offense is justified.

Shouldn't be offended at:
Everything else.

you mustn't be upset if someone makes a hurtful remark out of tactlessness or ignorance? i'm not sure that's quite how offence works....

Maybe I would take an initial visceral offense, but my brain and the brain of any stable person would override this. You judge people's words by the person's intent, and give their intent the benefit of the doubt. To take it to the extreme, say in my country's language something that sounds like "Fuck off" means "how are you doing". If you went to my country and I said this, would you be justified to take offense? Of course not. The intent is what matters. Different cultures and different generations all have different ways of communicating. Taking offense because of these differences is literally quibbling over semantics.

 

[ZYMHAN]

MiggityMikeB[/url]":zk6kw4ha]It's starting to get old seeing the amount of people being offended by everything, and then companies caving in to the greasy wheels on social media.

You mean "squeaky wheels", not "greasy wheels".

 

[parasyte]

bglick4[/url]":3sutcxru]

ligne[/url]":3sutcxru]

bglick4[/url]":3sutcxru]

Ostracus[/url]":3sutcxru]

bglick4[/url]":3sutcxru]People need to stop being offended by every little thing.

Can anyone draw up a list? So we can be on the same page.

Here's the list:

Can be offended at:
a deliberate attempt to insult or disparage without merit. It's a choice here, but at least offense is justified.

Shouldn't be offended at:
Everything else.

you mustn't be upset if someone makes a hurtful remark out of tactlessness or ignorance? i'm not sure that's quite how offence works....

Maybe I would take an initial visceral offense, but my brain and the brain of any stable person would override this. You judge people's words by the person's intent, and give their intent the benefit of the doubt. Take it to the extreme. Say in my country's language something that sounds like "Fuck off" means "how are you doing". If you went to may country and I said this, would you be justified to take offense? Of course not. The intent is what matters. Different cultures and different generations all have different ways of communicating. Taking offense because of these differences is literally quibbling over semantics.

Look, we just call them niggers where I'm from. Who are you to take offense to that?

 

[isparavanje]

parasyte[/url]":1hj3rs9g]

bglick4[/url]":1hj3rs9g]

ligne[/url]":1hj3rs9g]

bglick4[/url]":1hj3rs9g]

Ostracus[/url]":1hj3rs9g]

bglick4[/url]":1hj3rs9g]People need to stop being offended by every little thing.

Can anyone draw up a list? So we can be on the same page.

Here's the list:

Can be offended at:
a deliberate attempt to insult or disparage without merit. It's a choice here, but at least offense is justified.

Shouldn't be offended at:
Everything else.

you mustn't be upset if someone makes a hurtful remark out of tactlessness or ignorance? i'm not sure that's quite how offence works....

Maybe I would take an initial visceral offense, but my brain and the brain of any stable person would override this. You judge people's words by the person's intent, and give their intent the benefit of the doubt. Take it to the extreme. Say in my country's language something that sounds like "Fuck off" means "how are you doing". If you went to may country and I said this, would you be justified to take offense? Of course not. The intent is what matters. Different cultures and different generations all have different ways of communicating. Taking offense because of these differences is literally quibbling over semantics.

Look, we just call them niggers where I'm from. Who are you to take offense to that?

If that is indeed a part of your commonly used language and has absolutely no negative connotation where you're from, sure.

That's a big if.

 

[Sulla]

Man, people get so butthurt about shit these days.

Ima just leave this here:

 

[bglick4]

parasyte[/url]":2h81jhmo]

bglick4[/url]":2h81jhmo]

ligne[/url]":2h81jhmo]

bglick4[/url]":2h81jhmo]

Ostracus[/url]":2h81jhmo]

bglick4[/url]":2h81jhmo]People need to stop being offended by every little thing.

Can anyone draw up a list? So we can be on the same page.

Here's the list:

Can be offended at:
a deliberate attempt to insult or disparage without merit. It's a choice here, but at least offense is justified.

Shouldn't be offended at:
Everything else.

you mustn't be upset if someone makes a hurtful remark out of tactlessness or ignorance? i'm not sure that's quite how offence works....

Maybe I would take an initial visceral offense, but my brain and the brain of any stable person would override this. You judge people's words by the person's intent, and give their intent the benefit of the doubt. Take it to the extreme. Say in my country's language something that sounds like "Fuck off" means "how are you doing". If you went to may country and I said this, would you be justified to take offense? Of course not. The intent is what matters. Different cultures and different generations all have different ways of communicating. Taking offense because of these differences is literally quibbling over semantics.

Look, we just call them niggers where I'm from. Who are you to take offense to that?

If you didn't know better, no one should take offense at it. Was Jim offended when Huck Finn called him this? I would correct you and make it known that in my culture pretty much any use of that word is demeaning and offensive. If you again said it, offense would be justified.

edit: doh! no one should take offense at it. earlier wrote "no one should not" . Kind of changed the meaning. Please, judge me on my intent.

 

[Fritzr]

Already answered many times...

 

[Fritzr]

parboman[/url]":3i8uzvhb]This show will never air in Germany because as you point out, swastikas are illegal there.



Well it is available for Amazon prime members in Germany:
http://www.amazon.de/gp/video/detail/B0 ... 529&sr=8-1

There is an exception to german law on this subject:
(3) Subsection (1) shall not be applicable if the means of propaganda or the act serves to further civil enlightenment, to avert unconstitutional aims, to promote art or science, research or teaching, reporting about current historical events or similar purposes. […]
from:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strafgese ... ection_86a

Which clearly is applicable here.

Good to know. Back when the British series Allo, Allo was first dubbed in German for broadcast on German TV, it actually required action by German courts to get an exception to the law due to the appearance of WWII Nazi emblems, German military and secret police in a program that was an obvious parody of both Axis and Allied powers as well as the French residents of the village the program was set in.

The restrictions have apparently been relaxed since then.

 

[Fritzr]

bglick4[/url]":jifqvqpz]

ganjadude43[/url]":jifqvqpz]


let me preface with im an atheist.

now that that is out of the way you are aware that the first crusades were christians defending themselves from the new sect (at the time)called islam right????

I guess it depends on how you look at it. If you look at the Crusades as move to reclaim land once held by the Roman empire, than sure call it self defense. Of course, that would be like calling a British invasion of the US today self defense. The justification given for the Crusades and the real reasons for them and all the rest of that history is very interesting and helped to shape our world today, so it has importance. However, it's nonsense to somehow excuse jihad for actions of western warlords 500 years ago. Most of the world has progressed a lot in that time. The crusades would be condemned universally today. The US denounced forced conversions in her constitution 220 some years ago and the rest of the Western world has followed. I wish the Muslim world would make similar progress.

The civilized people of the Middle East were literally up in arms over the behavior of those barbaric Europeans during the Crusades just as the civilized people of Europe (including modern Americans) are literally up in arms over the behavior of those Barbaric Middle Easterners today.

The difference being that the modern crusaders have not made any serious attempts to carry the crusade overseas. There have been scattered attacks to generate public outrage, but nothing compared to what the Christians did. Like the sponsoring organization of the Christian Crusades did in their time (Every Catholic nation had a national Inquisition..The transition from Catholic to Protestant in Britain is why Queen Mary is remembered as Bloody Mary), the jihadis are concentrating on their homeland population.

 

[Natt]

bglick4[/url]":3u0lecyh]People need to stop being offended by every little thing. These are symbols of evil regimes free people kicked into the dustbin of history. We bastardize their hallowed symbols for ads for a TV show. Those who have been impacted by these evil regimes should look at these ads and smile, being again reminded of the utter and complete destruction of these regimes.

So you say. I say talk is cheap. Deep seated human emotions born in traumatic times don't work that way. You don't just turn them off or into something positive as you wish people to. It's visceral, it haunts you. you don't control it, it controls you.

 

[drspock11]

The ads were on the S train for about a week- not a day. Also, it was obvious Amazon already went out of their way not to use actual Nazi imagery like swastikas. Professional victims at work once again.

Bill di Blasio- tackling the important things like subway ads when the threat of terrorism against NYC is the highest its been since 2001.

 

[BinaryInk]

isparavanje[/url]":3l4rjrmn]

ligne[/url]":3l4rjrmn]

isparavanje[/url]":3l4rjrmn]I just disagree with whoever who thinks they think something should be removed because it could be offensive to others. We don't need to be second guessing what is offensive to whom, if someone is offended they will speak up.

up to a point? if it's sufficiently extreme or pervasive, those most directly affected might prefer to stay silent because they fear the backlash if they speak up. if they're a member of an already marginalised group, they might simply find they're ignored even if they do.

(i'm not saying that's the case here, i'm talking in general terms.)

Yeah I don't think we should be harsh about it. Honestly, the best scenario would be if no one even thinks about such stuff, such that no one has any opinion either way, leaving marginalized groups to voice their opinions as they wish while no one else is pretending to be offended on their behalf.

That fine balance is unlikely to ever be achieved, but hey, a man can dream. Also I think there's no question that we've erred way too far towards the "censor all the non-progressives" side.

Ah yes, that's why Trump's getting away with his race-bating tirades. Because all censorship is aimed at any thought/speech that isn't "progressive".

Sorry, I just needed to type that out to laugh at the thought.

Anti-PC-Conservatives like to get overly-offended easily as well as PC-Liberals. I call it "The Reality TV Effect." Thanks for the example.

 

[BinaryInk]

bglick4[/url]":3vt2jx4s]

ligne[/url]":3vt2jx4s]

bglick4[/url]":3vt2jx4s]

Ostracus[/url]":3vt2jx4s]

bglick4[/url]":3vt2jx4s]People need to stop being offended by every little thing.

Can anyone draw up a list? So we can be on the same page.

Here's the list:

Can be offended at:
a deliberate attempt to insult or disparage without merit. It's a choice here, but at least offense is justified.

Shouldn't be offended at:
Everything else.

you mustn't be upset if someone makes a hurtful remark out of tactlessness or ignorance? i'm not sure that's quite how offence works....

Maybe I would take an initial visceral offense, but my brain and the brain of any stable person would override this. You judge people's words by the person's intent, and give their intent the benefit of the doubt. To take it to the extreme, say in my country's language something that sounds like "Fuck off" means "how are you doing". If you went to my country and I said this, would you be justified to take offense? Of course not. The intent is what matters. Different cultures and different generations all have different ways of communicating. Taking offense because of these differences is literally quibbling over semantics.

Precisely this. If someone is accidentally ignorant of something, it's wholly different than willful ignorance. If they make an immediate step to apologize, understand, or otherwise acknowledge their ignorance, there should be no offense taken in the end. If they refuse to see the other side's offense at all and choose to embrace cognitive dissonance (or repeat said offense out of willful ignorance), be offended.

So, where I take issue is that people seem to think that because they're offended, the world must cave to their needs, even at the cost of freedom of speech. It's just outright narcissism. I can see why one could be offended, but the principle is what matters to me--not everyone's individual feelings. It sets a bad precedent to curtail a well-founded principle of human rights (that is in the US Constitution no less) for minor slights and offenses (being exposed to 'Nazi symbolism' is a minor slight at the most.)

So, I can see the other side, but I can still make my point with that general objection in mind. If that offends anyone...well, these are my thoughts and that's your problem; I'm not going to do thing one about it. And that's how it should be.

Finally, this Pew Research Poll comes to mind:
U.S. Millennials More Likely to Support Censoring Offensive Statements About Minorities

EDIT: Can't really find a good spot in there for this, but here it is: If you're a racist and you follow the laws (non-violent, peaceful protest--think WBC), should your thoughts be considered criminal? It's inhumane, pure and simple. FINAL EDIT: I do strongly dislike WBC. I'm an Atheist.

EDIT2: Mostly grammar.

 

[Pezaf]

You read the title of the article, then you look at the pictures...

The article title is click bait, if you ask me. I see no Nazi symbols present in them...considering the Nazi symbol is the Swastika, not the eagle with an Iron Cross surrounded by a blue field with red and white stripes.

I see the reaction to this as nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction and people wanting to "make a difference."

 

[jonahs]

It's offensive to me in the sense that it's pretty low-brow advertising and at the same time it's boring and middle ground. Would've been cooler if they had broken in and done it at Disney. Or rebranded Amazon. Or hacked Google maps.

I think this kinda ad, but done better, woulda fit more for and adaptation of The Iron Dream by Norman Spinrad which is purposefully OTT.

Similar principle as Godwin and why it isn't a good thing to pull in an argument. It doesn't mean there are no similarities, just it shuts off rational debate. The man in the high castle is much more interesting than that.

I find it kinda disturbing that people are blaming and criticizing folks for voicing opinions of being offended when it's the corporation Amazon that pulled it. And made it. And benefits more from pulling. You're demonizing a small minority being scapegoated by someone else to gain power and mindshare. You know who else did that?

 

[Vala]

Fritzr[/url]":3aeuhgl0]

Thor84no[/url]":3aeuhgl0]

Jordan Orlando[/url]":3aeuhgl0]

Thor84no[/url]":3aeuhgl0]

Jordan Orlando[/url]":3aeuhgl0]
This old bullshit again. Nobody's "censoring" anything. The mayor made a statement and the company voluntarily pulled the ads. Freedom of speech is preserved.

Agree with it or not, bullying someone in to self-censorship is absolutely censorship. Public outrage aimed at an individual or organisation is definitely such bullying. You just happen to agree with this particular instance of censorship - you've even gone so far as to state you'd never allow it to be displayed if you had a say which would also be censorship. It's not infringing on free speech however.

No, it's not. Censorship is censorship; it involves the law and the government. Shaming people into removing something is opinions between citizens. If they had refused to take down the ads, Di Blasio would not have been able to do anything about it, because this is America.

You're wrong about what censorship is. Censorship is the suppression of speech; see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.

(Emphasis mine)
What you're talking about is freedom of speech, which does indeed require it to be done by a government.

Vpluntary removal of material due to fear of lost sales is not censorship. If the objectors in NY had ordered Amazon to remove the ads THAT would be censorship.

Yes, it is self censoring, but under Free Speech rules you are permitted to remain silent or withdraw a statement if you decide you don't like the reaction to your "speech". It is polite to self censor. Consider whether you would answer the question "Does this dress make me look fat?" honestly or censor the proper answer.

Failing to answer that question honestly out of a sense of self preservation is not normally considered "censorship" though by your broad definition it most definitely is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-censorship
I can't see a way to interpret that where self-censorship is not censorship. And yes, in your example that is self-censorship. What of it? It's a socially accepted form of self-censorship, much like there are socially accepted forms of lying. The argument I was responding to was that this isn't censorship, and it most certainly is.

 

[Natt]

oxHanoverxo[/url]":3nf4mqzw]It's about as offensive as an episode of Hogan's Heroes...

Careful there, there's no shortage of people who find Hogan's Heroes offensive!

 

[Luv2Calculate]

I'm from the Netherlands, a country that actually was invaded by the Nazi's. One of my family members was interrogated to death in '44 in Rotterdam for his involvement with the resistance. And on account of my "lifestyle choices" I would have found myself on a train to Poland if I'd been alive back then.

But i'm not offended at all by Amazon's use of symbols remeniscent of the Nazi reich. I wouldn't even be offended by the actual symbols themselves. They're a part of history now.
And talking to my 95 year-old grandmother, I believe the people that actually lived though those times, and have themselves seen the Nazis at work, would prefer to have all of that history full in the open. Unabashed and unfiltered. Parodied openly. Talked about without hesitation. Better than having yet another authority telling them what they should or shouldn't be confronted with.

 

[marsilies]

Thor84no[/url]":21m6ayxa]

Fritzr[/url]":21m6ayxa][Voluntary] removal of material due to fear of lost sales is not censorship. If the objectors in NY had ordered Amazon to remove the ads THAT would be censorship.

Yes, it is self censoring, but under Free Speech rules you are permitted to remain silent or withdraw a statement if you decide you don't like the reaction to your "speech". It is polite to self censor. Consider whether you would answer the question "Does this dress make me look fat?" honestly or censor the proper answer.

Failing to answer that question honestly out of a sense of self preservation is not normally considered "censorship" though by your broad definition it most definitely is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-censorship
I can't see a way to interpret that where self-censorship is not censorship. And yes, in your example that is self-censorship. What of it? It's a socially accepted form of self-censorship, much like there are socially accepted forms of lying. The argument I was responding to was that this isn't censorship, and it most certainly is.

Typically, those who make the "self-censorship is not censorship" argument are focusing on a government or other agency able to force someone to censor their speech, such as via arrest. The idea is the legally enforced censorship is much more dangerous and difficult to counter than self-censorship due to social or economic pressures. Typically to fight government censorship you're either going to ultilize constitutionality, modifying laws, or in extreme cases, revolution.

This is in contrast to self-censorship, even if the self-censorship is in response to outside pressures. Typically, outside groups can try to pressure someone to censor or change their speech either via social pressures (if it's a person, i.e unfriending, public criticism, etc.), or economic pressures (if it's a company, i.e. boycotting or complaining to advertisers). While this can be insidious and damaging to speech in its own right, its on a different level than government censorship.

For an example of the contrast, the discussion about free speech in regards to Lenny Bruce is less about his blacklisting on network TV and more about his arrests for obscenity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenny_Bruce#Obscenity_arrests

In some ways, the ability of an individual or organization to self censor is a freedom provided by freedom of speech; it's as much about being allowed to not say something as it is to say something. There's room for debate about whether applying social or economic pressure to try and convince someone else to change their speech constitutes "bullying," but it's not, according to the strictest definition of the term, censorship.

 

[marsilies]

BinaryInk[/url]":bc3n9pus]
Finally, this Pew Research Poll comes to mind:
U.S. Millennials More Likely to Support Censoring Offensive Statements About Minorities

EDIT: Can't really find a good spot in there for this, but here it is: If you're a racist and you follow the laws (non-violent, peaceful protest--think WBC), should your thoughts be considered criminal? It's inhumane, pure and simple. FINAL EDIT: I do strongly dislike WBC. I'm an Atheist.

I see a few problems with that poll. For one, the actual question asked didn't include the word "censor" in it, but was the more vague "The government should be able to prevent people from saying these things." I think if the phrasing had included the words "censor" or "censorship" in it, the response would've been different.

Also, people tend to oppose censorship except when it's to censor things they don't like. This is pretty much universal and not tied to age or political party. For example, while in the poll you linked conservatives are overwhelmingly in favor of allowing minority hate speech, in this other poll they are overwhelmingly in favor of banning flagburning:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/17491/suppor ... dment.aspx

So I don't think the poll is particularly damning to Millennials in that they aren't anymore opposed to free speech than any other group, depending on the topic at hand.