Insulting public figures and hate speech in the Politics subforum

Just listen to this... outright insulting the country. 🤣

This reminds me of that old movie where Boris Dvornik plays a local sheriff—his favorite pastime was just sitting in a pub, watching the local crew play cards... whenever someone would let out a curse at the King (whether it was hearts, diamonds, or spades...), Boris would step in and hand out a fine for disrespecting the King and the Fatherland. 🤣

Regarding the glorification of the NDH—where exactly is that prohibited? Does anyone have the specific newspaper date and issue number? 🤷

granitefalcon26 said:The Ustaše and their movement existed from 1939 to 1945. Let’s not try to reinvent the wheel or manufacture some alternative history here.

And while Nazism doesn't exist today as an active, legal political force, it absolutely lives on as an ideology—as a myth that binds certain people together. They used to operate in organized groups, and they still lean heavily on that old symbolism. That’s why we still call them (neo) Nazis; even if nothing can ever perfectly replicate a historical, mythologized original, the connection remains.

redheron12 said:Regarding the glorification of the NDH—where exactly is that prohibited? Someone please drop the newspaper name and issue number. 🤷

From what I gather, it’s not about specific group names. It's more about banning the promotion of certain ideas rooted in racial ideology or discrimination—whether that's religious, outward appearance, or whatever. Any movement or activism that can be proven to contain those elements is automatically included, right? 🤷

bluemason3 said:From what I understand, it isn't really about specific movement names, but rather banning the signals of certain ideas rooted in racial ideology or discrimination—whether religious, external, or whatever else. Any movement or activism that can be demonstrably linked to those elements is automatically included, right? 🤷

Actually, I think you might be looking at this a bit too broadly. Under the law, it is forbidden to glorify criminal regimes and ideologies.

Everything else should be open for discussion, and honestly, it must be allowed if we want to call ourselves a democracy.

What is prohibited is the glorification of anything that advocated for or committed crimes in the past, as well as any advocacy for current or future crimes.

Now, racists, discriminatory views, and movements that push them—provided they aren't directly tied to committing or advocating for crimes—are certainly inappropriate. In my opinion, they should be condemned through public discourse by clashing them against rational arguments. I suppose there is a belief that rational logic is ultimately stronger than the irrational impulses that drive various forms of discrimination (though, I guess, not all of those impulses are equally bad in themselves).

If we ban something that hasn't been publicly proven to be "criminal," without reaching a consensus or having clear arguments, I suspect we might just end up strengthening exactly what we tried to prohibit. On the other hand, exposing even the darkest ideas to public scrutiny often serves to "dilute" them and can make them seem benign. Perhaps the preferred way for society to act should be more dialogue and fewer bans. It seems to me we should only prohibit what is absolutely necessary to prohibit.

bluemason3 said:And Nazi ideology doesn't exist as an active, legal political force, but it does persist as an ideology—as a myth that binds certain people together. Sometimes they show up in organized groups using its symbols, which is why we still call them (neo) Nazis, even if nothing is ever quite identical to the original historical mythologized source.

Give me a break, 🙂. As soon as Dr. ŽAP set foot on American soil, he immediately pulled out his fascist membership card! My grandad used to tell me how he watched him do it while he was heading off to Australia!
...

Anyway, I'm a little confused by this whole mess of factions—the partisans, the Chetniks, the various splinter groups, etc. If you had Chetniks turning into partisans, and even the fascists weren't necessarily at each other's throats (and vice versa)*, then why, hypothetically speaking, couldn't an ex-partisan like Dr. Franjo Tuđman have simply become a fascist??

*and then they claim there was no unity or brotherhood 🤷

Or is it just a matter of knowing how to wear the right coat at the right time?

slybison8 said:Not really... I think you're being a bit too broad here. Legally speaking, it's forbidden to glorify criminal regimes and ideologies.

Everything else should be open for debate—it has to be—in a democracy.

What's actually prohibited is glorifying anything that advocated for or committed crimes in the past, or any advocacy for current or future crimes.

Racism, discrimination, and the movements that promote them—as long as they aren't directly tied to specific crimes or the incitement of crime—are inappropriate. They should be condemned through public discourse by pitting rational arguments against irrational impulses. We have to believe those rational arguments are stronger than the whims that lead to different types of discrimination (which, let's be honest, aren't all equally bad).

Banning something that hasn't been proven to be "criminal" without clear consensus or solid arguments just ends up strengthening what you tried to suppress in the long run. On the flip side, exposing dark ideas to public scrutiny often "dilutes" them and makes them seem benign. That should be our preferred way of acting—more dialogue, fewer bans. Only ban what absolutely needs banning.

Sure, but based on the description, it's about the actions, not specific names. So, it's illegal to glorify existing or past acts, or to incite future discriminatory or aggressive behavior and hatred based on race, politics, religion, gender, or affiliation. That’s all I see in the criminal code, not some specific ban on mentioning Nazis or the NDH "by name." It seems to me the scope is quite wide, leaving plenty of room for interpretation in actual legal proceedings.