[Discuss] Should Flags of terrorist organizations be banned?

[Frisbeeteria]

My thought must be banned because terror cannot be enacted what is your feedback ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

[Frisbeeteria]

This is in response to multiple Getting Help reports about various flags that the OP thought ought to be illegal. Their English is not great, so please be clear in your response. Also, this is not something we enact via popular vote, so I've removed the poll.

[Hakinda Herseyi Duymak istiyorum]

This is in response to multiple Getting Help reports about various flags that the OP thought ought to be illegal. Their English is not great, so please be clear in your response. Also, this is not something we enact via popular vote, so I've removed the poll.

Just how many people thinks like me I wonder survey should be not removed freedom of discussion should be
But your rules bro just a suggestion
I don't understand my English badly excuse me

[Twin Moons]

No real-world flag should ever be banned, just as we don't ban people from creating evil nations.

To put it in perspective: one of the oldest issues in NS allows you to legalize Human sacrifices to Violet.

[Highever]

Where exactly do we draw the line on this? The swastika has validity due to the similar laws of several nations regarding its display. Do we ban the flags of Taiwan because the mainland considers them somewhat akin to an unrecognized terror group? Ban the flags of groups considered terrorists only by one or a few countries? Seems incredibly vague here.

[Jebslund]

Where exactly do we draw the line on this? The swastika has validity due to the similar laws of several nations regarding its display. Do we ban the flags of Taiwan because the mainland considers them somewhat akin to an unrecognized terror group? Ban the flags of groups considered terrorists only by one or a few countries? Seems incredibly vague here.

The swastika isn't even banned.

[Highever]

Where exactly do we draw the line on this? The swastika has validity due to the similar laws of several nations regarding its display. Do we ban the flags of Taiwan because the mainland considers them somewhat akin to an unrecognized terror group? Ban the flags of groups considered terrorists only by one or a few countries? Seems incredibly vague here.

The swastika isn't even banned.

Well as nation flags they are, but in RP context and such they're not.

[Luna Amore]

The swastika isn't even banned.

Well as nation flags they are, but in RP context and such they're not.

They aren't banned from nation flags. It depends on context which is difficult but not impossible to do within the rules (Jainism flag on a Jainism themed nation for example). I had a swastika on my flag for a while to demonstrate the concept.

[Imbalistan]

The swastika isn't even banned.

Well as nation flags they are, but in RP context and such they're not.

Nope, swastika also has religious meaning in Hinduism, and even Buddhism I believe. So, sometimes the flags are not tolerated, its a hot cake situation.

[Jebslund]

The swastika isn't even banned.

Well as nation flags they are, but in RP context and such they're not.

No, actually, they aren't.

To quote Violet:

An example is the use of a swastika as a national flag. The swastika isn't specifically banned on NationStates, because we don't ban particular references or arrangements of pixels. But since it is widely seen to symbolize specific real-life events--in particular, the Holocaust--it is usually unacceptable, as an endorsement of violence against real-life people. (This is regardless of how it's intended: We don't try to peer into minds to judge intent, only how it appears.)

Similarly, there is no ban on mentioning Nazis, or Hitler, or espousing ideological beliefs. However, a nation made up as a cookie-cutter Nazi Germany in its name, region, and custom fields (e.g. motto, currency), with no contrary context or redeeming content, is hard to interpret as anything other than an endorsement of that real-life nation's most well-known acts. So this is unacceptable, too. This is the kind of content that has been getting through lately, and shouldn't have.

I'm using Nazi examples because that's what we've seen recently, but it applies equally to any theme or organization that's primarily known for violence for against real-life people. And conversely, it's perfectly fine for a nation to reference Nazis, if that's done in a way that isn't likely to make reasonable people think it's endorsing the Holocaust.

A common question is why we don't ban nations that mimic the Soviet Union, or the USA, or some other real-life nation/entity with a violent history. Certainly, you can total up the body count of various real-world countries and arrive at awful totals: the Soviet Union under Stalin, for example. The question we ask is whether a mini-Soviet Union nation appears to celebrate violence against RL people. And the answer is probably no: assuming no specific references to the contrary, most people wouldn't make that association, because the Soviet Union is widely known for much more than butchery.

[Krasny-Volny]

Where exactly do we draw the line on this? The swastika has validity due to the similar laws of several nations regarding its display.

This is not true. Several Eastern European nations have similar laws concerning the display of the hammer and sickle, including a few that apply the same laws to the swastika.

NationStates does not ban the hammer and sickle despite its display being illegal in several states just like the swastika.

The site has banned the swastika when used in the context of Nazism because it is almost universally associated with genocide and racism. Whereas the hammer and sickle has no such universal association, and means different things to different people despite being flown by more than a few rather nasty regimes itself.

[USS Monitor]

Here are some swastika flags other than mod puppets that we've allowed:

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=athara_magarat
https://www.nationstates.net/nation=hindu_mahasabha

It's permitted in appropriate contexts.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

If the flag is meant to be malicious to a group of people then I would see why it should be banned, but if not, I don't see why it should. I think the current rules are fine.

This proposal also begs the question on who's list of terrorist groups would this site use to decide which flags should be banned. Who is viewed as a terrorist and who isn't is unfortunately not always objective.

[Highever]

Huh I did not know either of those things.Interesting.

[Nilrahrarfan]

We should just ban the ISIS flag and call it a day, since it has no meaning other than terrorism.

[Hakinda Herseyi Duymak istiyorum]

I understand now there are cultural differences between us sample swastika symbol of racism but historical bi symbol but flags in the present

[Greater vakolicci haven]

The moderators will never agree with me on this, but no flags or opinions should be banned. Every opinion is valid, as someone holds it, however disgusting it might be.

[Caracasus]

The label 'terrorist' is far too vague to put anything like this into place. Whose defenition of terrorist we go with would be an impossible decision to make.

While there probably are problems with current flag policy, I struggle to see how a replacement would be better.

[Phydios]

The moderators will never agree with me on this, but no flags or opinions should be banned. Every opinion is valid, as someone holds it, however disgusting it might be.

...Isn't this literally Moderation policy? The rules outright say that they don't ban specific flags or designs- only rule-breaking use of them. (There's already been examples of acceptable swastikas given in this thread.) And the rules do treat every opinion is valid, no matter how offensive some people might find it, as long as it is not stated in a rule-breaking way. A very recent ruling shows that Moderation doesn't ban opinions just because some people find them disgusting.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

The moderators will never agree with me on this, but no flags or opinions should be banned. Every opinion is valid, as someone holds it, however disgusting it might be.

...Isn't this literally Moderation policy? The rules outright say that they don't ban specific flags or designs- only rule-breaking use of them. (There's already been examples of acceptable swastikas given in this thread.) And the rules do treat every opinion is valid, no matter how offensive some people might find it, as long as it is not stated in a rule-breaking way. A very recent ruling shows that Moderation doesn't ban opinions just because some people find them disgusting.

Some opinions are treated very differently too others.

[Jebslund]

...Isn't this literally Moderation policy? The rules outright say that they don't ban specific flags or designs- only rule-breaking use of them. (There's already been examples of acceptable swastikas given in this thread.) And the rules do treat every opinion is valid, no matter how offensive some people might find it, as long as it is not stated in a rule-breaking way. A very recent ruling shows that Moderation doesn't ban opinions just because some people find them disgusting.

Some opinions are treated very differently too others.

Not really... Some people are simply incapable of expressing those opinions in rules-compliant ways, then blame Moderation Bias^TM for their own shortcoming.

[Nilrahrarfan]

Some opinions are treated very differently too others.

Not really... Some people are simply incapable of expressing those opinions in rules-compliant ways, then blame Moderation Bias^TM for their own shortcoming.

For example, instead of saying that the jews should be killed in a genocide, you should say that Soros should be put out of power. It's only one person, so it's not racism. It's also less offensive. There are even many jews who hate Soros, so there's no trolling involved.

[USS Monitor]

The moderators will never agree with me on this, but no flags or opinions should be banned. Every opinion is valid, as someone holds it, however disgusting it might be.

Max and Google disagree with you even before us mods have our say.

We don't care about money in the sense of maximizing profits, but we do want the site to support itself, so that it will be here for years to come. If Google dumps us for being a "hate site" or some such, that doesn't work.

[Nilrahrarfan]

The moderators will never agree with me on this, but no flags or opinions should be banned. Every opinion is valid, as someone holds it, however disgusting it might be.

Max and Google disagree with you even before us mods have our say.

We don't care about money in the sense of maximizing profits, but we do want the site to support itself, so that it will be here for years to come. If Google dumps us for being a "hate site" or some such, that doesn't work.

You should be more relaxed, with a few Nazi Symbols allowed. However, there should be a disclaimer stating how the website doesn't support Nazi ideologies. What could possibly go wrong?

[Drop Your Pants]

You should be more relaxed, with a few Nazi Symbols allowed. However, there should be a disclaimer stating how the website doesn't support Nazi ideologies. What could possibly go wrong?

You make it sound like this is a democracy, it's not. Max said no, he's the big boss. We don't have a say in what the rules are, we just play by them or go find another website