damn hackers

Lol

If it's just bigotry, fuck the entire case.
Bigotry is no excuse for prosecution or fines.
It is a different story if he actually planned on attacking a group of people and/or particular individuals. Either wouldn't surprise
me I guess.
I wish Varg would just calm down with his ideological hatred. It's all commetely irrational, and it probably keeps him
perpetually pissed off. It certainly doesn't lead to good jams either.

goodbye freedom of speech

Implying I only care about freedom of speech in the united states?

Freedom of speech only exists in america what are you guys saying

i dont like this guy. dont care if he did it or not.

The French take secularism and anti-discrimination very seriously on paper, which is probably a value inherited from the French Enlightenment.
It's illegal for Muslim women there to wear hijabs apparently. Unfortunately, they're often applied when it's convenient similar to the US and the rest of the world.

Racial hatred
hates muslims and jews
racial
okay

fuck this though, yea he is an asshole for talking shit about groups of people but its not like that is jail worthy in any sense of the word otherwise half of rural Canada would be behind bars.

It's a stupid law(s). If I write some "hate speech" blog posts while in the US, then live in France, could I still be arrested for hate speech? Is it only for posts made while physically in the country? Haven't looked at the actual laws, but given this case they seem pretty arbitrary and stupid.

varg has been trolling before the Internet

LOL varg's at it again

Silly Varg, up to his ol' shenanigans

Im jewish and even i think the ruling, hell the entire case is stupid. If the guy wants to say stupid shit, let him say stupid shit.
Varg is still a piece of shit human being regardless though

He's certainly a wacky fellow he sure is

Guy should really have a fucking laugh track following him

He really loves jail

Guy should really have a fucking laugh track following him

Good bye freedom of speech

Well,Vikernes' political thoughts are against freedom of speech so he might like this case

After the whole Hitler/Nazi ordeal the nations in Europe decided to take racism very, very seriously.

For instance, in Germany the first protection in their laws is to human dignity, not to speech or religion like in America. It all has to do with their history. Of course Europe still has major issues with race but perhaps not as bad as in the U.S.

I'm all for freedom of speech but, you know, fuck racism.

oh Varg

god damnit varg...........

the jew and muslim not being actual "races" is kinda funny^^
hating sects of people like that is just insane. although some of the things within the religion are pretty crazy too

Europe is so damn racist. in the barclays premiere league they have sections for their white supremacist fans.....

Now that he's in prison again maybe we can finally get a good burzum album. Doubt that would happen in 6 months though

Dude supposedly wrote it, its against the law, he deserved his punishment

"Freedom of speech only exists in america what are you guys saying"
This. If there is mention of "freedom of speech" in European "constitutions" I'd reckon it's more like ours which explictly states "limited freedom of speech".

And it's not like that's necessarily a bad thing. Also, I don't see why certain writings (in this case on the internet) - given a specific character should be given different treatment than paper writings or oral declarations. I mean you can similarly be investigated and prosecuted for your words on the web, considering most of it is public domain (hence public laws often apply).

varg now composing daudi baldrs 2 on an iphone midi sequencer

....Varg

I'm sure he got a bit of a bullshit sentence because of his connection to Breivik and collection of freshly purchased guns. Varg is a cunt either way so I would love to see them lock his ass up again.

Lol, what a shite country France is.

#freeVarg

^ Hope that's a joke.

"I'm sure he got a bit of a bullshit sentence because of his connection to Breivik and collection of freshly purchased guns."
That's probably not even possible and even if it was within the national legal framework it would probably be illegal within the European legal context.

About France being a shit country? Nope.

About freeing Varg? Of course haha.

"About France being a shit country? Nope."

Please elaborate. Especially how this case would somehow make you infer that an entire country of ~60-70 million people is entirely "shit".

Not the people dude, just don't like the country as in its scenery and shit.

Find it a p dull place.

Alright, I just get curious with such statements because they're usually followed by a swath of incoherent, jingoist verbal diarrhea.

I meant that it probably incited the police to keep a watch over him and take him for anything that pops up rather than wait around for a serious crime to be committed.

Stifling speech is always awful IMO. The moment someone acts on hateful thoughts - yeah, do whatever you need to in order to prosecute them. And in this specific case, Varg is clearly an awful person. But punishing someone for posting their thoughts online is crazy. It's an outlet to get some of that hate out for a lot of people, and punishing them for actually voicing their thoughts isn't going to change the way they think (in a positive way at least).

"Europe is so damn racist. in the barclays premiere league they have sections for their white supremacist fans....."

wtf no they don't

hahaha I don't recall ever seeing anything of that sort from Holte End, Villa Park. ^^

it's true, they ask everyone about their politics and social ideology at the gates of the football grounds and then cordon everyone into appropriate mindset zones

Well that guy is a dick but he made some good tunes

fuck this though, yea he is an asshole for talking shit about groups of people but its not like that is jail worthy in any sense of the word otherwise half of rural Canada would be behind bars.

If he were in America this would be protected under the First Amendment. Wasn't aware that you aren't allowed to voice your opinions, however fucked up and wrong they may be, in a county like France.

Europe has pretty strict laws it seems

should have been imprisoned years ago for his music outputs

He's probably right on the impersonation part

Thanks, Obama.

Europe is a lot more antisemitic than the United States. There have been studies that have done a great job illustrating that.

dude is crazy

"I meant that it probably incited the police to keep a watch over him and take him for anything that pops up rather than wait around for a serious crime to be committed."
Which, as I said, is pretty much illegal outside of extreme circumstances.

"Stifling speech is always awful IMO. The moment someone acts on hateful thoughts - yeah, do whatever you need to in order to prosecute them.. [..]But punishing someone for posting their thoughts online is crazy."
No, it's not. Once again, it's public domain - ergo public law is applicable. There's also the case that total freedom of speech would also mean I could just slander, insult and defame people and then refer to "just expressing my opinion". That doesn't work, not to mention that if it would set precedent you'd have a whole bulk of legal issues in terms of enforcement.

"European crazy and obviously not a fan of metal given what almost happened to randy Blythe and now this"
Ridiculous statement, also wrong.

Europe is a lot more antisemitic than the United States. There have been studies that have done a great job illustrating that.

I know it's still a big problem in Russia/former Soviet countries.

I'm surprised this thread isn't just a bunch of sheep trying to defend him

just varg being varg

I'm surprised this thread isn't just a bunch of sheep trying to defend him


yeah he deserves a raise

What the hell would a slut know

nothing apparently :[

I was watching Real Sports with Bryan Bumbel and he did a segment about the horrible racism in european soccer, and at many arenas they will make arrangements to sit the white supremacists next to each other to avoid conflict

wolfhorde tearing shit up itt

It's actually worse in France, Italy, Greece, and Spain than it is in Russia or Ukraine. France is almost as bad as some of the countries surrounding Israel which shocked me. The study was a but questionable though. You were allowed 7 antisemitic stereotypes before you qualified as a strong antisemite, which is ridiculous in itself. The US and the UK aren't that bad though.

check hvis

"It's actually worse in France, Italy, Greece, and Spain than it is in Russia or Ukraine. France is almost as bad as some of the countries surrounding Israel which shocked me. The study was a but questionable though. You were allowed 7 antisemitic stereotypes before you qualified as a strong antisemite, which is ridiculous in itself. The US and the UK aren't that bad though."
Well, I think there's a bit of a difference between "just antisemitism" and the often radical nationalist/neonazi tendencies and scenes in former Soviet Union countries that followed the backlash from the whole "communism didn't work so well for us". There's also quite a difference between practical antisemitism and theoretical antisemitism, these differences were quite distinctly identified in German history with the German Empire and the Third Reich. I think it's quite obvious which one had which going for them.

It should be pretty obvious though that the U.S. isn't the only country in which things like racism, jingoism and the likes still exist to varying degrees.

I see what you're saying and I find it silly to make the distinction between practical antisemitism and extreme antisemitism, but
I guess that it's both inevitable and useful at times to make that distinction.
The only difference imo is a difference in action and rhetoric; the former can easily transform into the later, and especially in
times of economic crises or conflicts where racist sentiments run the risk of becoming more politically acceptable. In the case
of the US, I think that we also run the risk of falling into the same trap as France with political correctness. It's good that we're
supposedly not as antisemitic as European countries, but the fear of coming off as bigoted can keep Americans from having
honest debates when it comes to things like Israeli policy. This is especially important in moments like the current crisis in
Gaza. Believe it or not, there are actually state politicians who are trying to ban pro-Palestinian/anti-Zionism rallies at
universities in States like New York by cutting state and federal funding to universities who allow such rallies.

"I see what you're saying, but I find it silly to make the distinction between practical antisemitism and extreme antisemitism."
From the historical perspective, I have to disagree. There are distinct differences, the antisemitic rhetoric of the kingdom of Austria-Hungary and stereotyping of the the jews in the German Empire never went into any action for over 40 years. Jews were not boycotted, publically harassed or barred from any jobs.

Surely, we SHOULD be able to get past both of those but there are distinct differences.

"The only difference imo is a difference in action and rhetoric; the former can easily transform into the later, and especially in times of economic crises or conflicts where racist sentiments run the risk of becoming more politically acceptable."
I would be careful with the logic of slippery slopes, especially with extreme examples. Again, German history is a perfect example - I'm not aware to which degree there are inquiries into the Third Reich beyond "this is the nazi ideology, they were evil and FUCK YEAH WE BEAT THEM" (excuse my stereotyping) but the matter of fact is that it even during those times it took gradual, structural changes for the public to accommodate. So I wouldn't be so sure that one will "just like that" become the other. (even in times of crisis, which was certainly the case during those times and the Weimar Republic prior to that)


"In the case of the US, I think that we also run the risk of falling into the same trap as France with political correctness. It's good that we're
supposedly not as antisemitic as European countries, but the fear of coming off as bigoted can keep Americans from having honest debates when it comes to things like Israeli policy."
That is certainly true but that goes for a lot of Western countries, given the historical circumstances there will surely be such accusations especially within the context of misconstrued communication. Either way, I agree that Israel should not be given a special position in which it won't be criticized because of its history.

"This is especially important in moments like the current crisis in
Gaza. Believe it or not, there are actually state politicians who are trying to ban pro-Palestinian/anti-Zionism rallies at universities in States like New York by cutting state and federal funding to universities who allow such rallies."
That sounds utterly ridiculous. What would their line of reasoning be? "We can't appear antisemitic so we can't criticize them." ? Not entirely sure how this became a conversation about antisemitism, though. (as I said, most countries have their "construction sites")

"There are distinct differences, the antisemitic rhetoric of the kingdom of Austria-Hungary and stereotyping of the the jews in
the German Empire never went into any action for over 40 years. Jews were not boycotted, publically harassed or barred from
any jobs."
I wouldn't go as far saying that Jews didn't face public harassment. I'm sure if you were willing to conduct some research into
personal accounts, it is possible that you would find plenty of examples. The biggest difference is that the public and the state
didn't use bigotry and discrimination as a tool for rallying the public and for political gains (at that point), but again, I could be
wrong if we're talking about incidents at the local level.

"So I wouldn't be so sure that one will "just like that" become the other."
There is a trend of nationalist parties gaining popularity in Europe right now: Golden Dawn in Greece, UKIP in the EU
parliament, Jorik in Hungary, one of major nationalist parties in Ukraine that has played a major hand in the pro-western
protests this last year...ect. There is definitely a coorleation between economic crises and the rise of radical nationalist/radical
leftists political parties. I wouldn't call it anymore than a coorleation though since it would be a slippery slope to say that these
parties will result into anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim attacks. It is a possibility though, but I think that everyone acknowledges
that possibility.

"That sounds utterly ridiculous. What would their line of reasoning be? "We can't appear antisemitic so we can't criticize
them." ?"
I think that a lot of it comes down to the fear of being out-fundraised by other candidates. Lobbying groups and super PACS
like AIPAC contribute tons of money to politicians of both parties, and I'd imagine that there's a lot of pressure from both
parties to appear as pro-Israeli as possible just to keep donors like Sheldon Adelson from pouring millions of dollars into
another candidate. That's not much more than speculation as I'm sure your point might be true to a certain extent, but the root
of most political decisions derives from the fear of losing money and/or political influence. PACS like AIPAC contribute fairly
evenly between both parties, and operate on both the State and Federal Level.

Regarding the whole Freedom Of Speech limiting. You dudes are forgetting that all basic constitutional rights in most European countries (with the exception of the right to defend yourself in court and to live) can actually be limited if the government deems it necesary (defending some government secret, protecting an ethnic group, person's space etc.). There's a whole institution in charge of interpreting the constituion in any way they like. It sounds stupid, but it keeps people from running through town naked with swastikas on their butt. Kind off his own fault really.

"Europe is so damn racist. in the barclays premiere league they have sections for their white supremacist fans..... "

The Kop?

"I wouldn't go as far saying that Jews didn't face public harassment. I'm sure if you were willing to conduct some research into personal accounts, it is possible that you would find plenty of examples. The biggest difference is that the public and the state didn't use bigotry and discrimination as a tool for rallying the public and for political gains (at point), but again, I could be wrong if we're talking about incidents at the local level."
Certainly, if you dig deep enough you can find "evidence" for everything. Whether that's solid evidence that can be genralized is a completely different story, though. And we did quite thorough research on those things, certainly there were regional differences and sometimes these things happened but it was never on any big scale - certainly not "national". And as I said, for the most part it never resulted in legal consequences like barring them from certain jobs and such. (supposedly one of the doctors of Vienna's mayor during that time was actually Jewish and said mayor was gigantic antisemite)

"There is a trend of nationalist parties gaining popularity in Europe right now: Golden Dawn in Greece, UKIP in the EU parliament, Jorik in Hungary, one of major nationalist parties in Ukraine that has played a major hand in the pro-western protests this last year...ect."
I'm very well aware of these parties and have been doing a fair bit of research into them for the past 2-3 years, especially since the AfD popped up and some of them gained more traction. But you're simplifying things here a bit, a lot of these parties are populist parties - which is certainly not the same as actual (integral) nationalist parties like Jobbik (the Hungarian party you mentioned), Greece's Golden Dawn (which has fortunately been defeated in elections) or France's Front National. But generally speaking, these "nationalist" parties are populist in nature - they use "edgy" nationalist rhetoric in order to gain political power. But they are also quite "segregated" if I may use that word, both internally and externally. The German AfD are more on an economically "liberal" (or even neoliberal) trail, the Dutch VvV, the UKIP and the FN are more concerned with cultural issues. Then, a lot of times - their political wings are quite split. The FN for example still has a lot of old members from the time of the Marie Le Pen's father (aka a lot of racists anx xenophobes) and the new "nationalists", the AfD is split into liberals, rich conservatives, worker conservatives/older generations with nostalgic memories etc etc.
So, once again - things are a lot more nuanced than they may look.

Continuing..

"There is definitely a coorleation between economic crises and the rise of radical nationalist/radical leftists political parties. I wouldn't call it anymore than a coorleation though since it would be a slippery slope to say that these parties will result into anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim attacks. It is a possibility though, but I think that everyone acknowledges that possibility."
Oh, there is certainly a possibility that some of these parties use that rhetoric or that some of their members would go down route. But they're just a platform for people who have existed in the first place. The German AN, the NSU or French nationalists have been doing things without parties for quite some time. These political parties don't necessarily change the ball-game.

"I think that a lot of it comes down to the fear of being out-fundraised by other candidates. Lobbying groups and super PACS like AIPAC contribute tons of money to politicians of both parties, and I'd imagine that there's a lot of pressure from both parties to appear as pro-Israeli as possible just to keep donors like Sheldon Adelson from pouring millions of dollars into another candidate."
I'm still having an issue with understanding that system entirely, or at least the logic which it relies on - particularly with what I heard recently where people can now pretty much have unlimited campaign contributions. It seems like all this money on politics is in the U.S. is a serious problems in terms of meddling with their actual jobs.

"That's not much more than speculation as I'm sure your point might be true to a certain extent, but the root of most political decisions derives from the fear of losing money and/or political influence. PACS like AIPAC contribute fairly evenly between both parties, and operate on both the State and Federal Level."
Well, that pseudo-quote was more of a rhetorical statement than an actual guess - I mean I don't really know as it would depend on specifics we're talking about and I haven't gotten into specifics about U.S. politics on a state level yet. (as I said, I still think the system is somewhat "weird")

fucking french people

Where the fuck have you been?!

^^ I read those last two comments backwards, Pleb's first and then tommy's as the response. Made me lol.

here and there dude

lol jamie

"Regarding the whole Freedom Of Speech limiting."
Once again, "freedom of speech" is a specifically American thing. And even there, it does not exist in the way that a lot of people have come to think of it. As I hinted earlier, practicall you do not possess "freedom of speech" in the sense that you can just say whatever the hell you want. (which is probably not what freedom of speech was about anyway)

"You dudes are forgetting that all basic constitutional rights in most European countries (with the exception of the right to defend yourself in court and to live) can actually be limited if the government deems it necesary (defending some government secret, protecting an ethnic group, person's space etc.)."
That is a vast generalization and also not entirely correct. It depends on which rights can be "minimized" in which situations which is not just subject to state legislation but also subject to European legislation nowadays. So no, the state can not just strip you of your rights whenever they "deem it necessary" (which sounds like they could do it whenever they want). For example, in Germany - even in cases where your rights are restricted you still retain certain rights, e.g. as a prisoner. Then there's the case that this is barely relevant since most cases in which this would actually be applicable are not the reality of most European citizen's lives. (unless you're a prisoner or a soldier)

"There's a whole institution in charge of interpreting the constituion in any way they like. It sounds stupid, but it keeps people from running through town naked with swastikas on their butt. Kind off his own fault really."
This is also not entirely correct, institutions like national supreme courts can not just interpret their respective "constitutions" (which is a concept that is not always applicable in European countries) interpret the law any way they want to. And again, European legislation trumps national legislation. Even if the Bundesverfassungsgericht for example (German equiivalent of the USSC) decided that a company could do with people's information whatever the hell they wanted without their consent the ESC, the European Comission and probably the European Parliament would tell them that: no, they can't.

In the same way that you couldn't just hand out your EU membership at the door but then be like "but hey, I'd still like to benefit from all those Eurozone, freetrade etc. provisions!" (like some politicians in GB apparently thought)

Varg being Varg

Varg's youtube channel brings the lolz

I don't even hate him.

Love him as a musician, but I can't say I'm massive on him as a person. Still, his thoughts and opinions are his own.

I try to distance the man from the music.

Best way

How did this guy not get life for murder? Is norway's system that fucked?

Not really sure.

"How did this guy not get life for murder? Is norway's system that fucked?"

um you do know that breivik sits in a luxury prison right now? so yea the system is pretty fucked.

also, this guy is pretty goddamn stupid

@Wolfhorde

You seem to have misunderstood. I never implied "stripping off all rights" I was implying taking/limiting certain ones (freedom in case of prison for instance). As for the institutions they are literally the only ones allowed to do it legally for other courts to base their decisions on their interpretation.(Constitutional jurisprudence). They do have to follow certain reglamentations from the EU and follow certain principles (not overdo it etc.) when they come up with their interpretations. There's also a problem with the French Constitutional system since their Constitutional Court jurisprudence is more of a recomendational thing (they can choose not to follow it) which makes it a whole lot less effective and allows shit like this to happen.

"um you do know that breivik sits in a luxury prison right now? so yea the system is pretty fucked."
If by "fucked" you mean the most effective prison system in the world, then yes.

a system that seeks to avoid inflicting pain for the sake of pure mindless vengeance is fucked agreed

"You seem to have misunderstood. I never implied "stripping off all rights" I was implying taking/limiting certain ones (freedom in case of prison for instance)."
Yes, the way you phrased it just sounded like the state could just willy-nilly start being like "oh, today we deem it necessary to strip people off their basic rights". Oh yeah, you also said "basic rights" which has a very specific definition here. (Grundrechte in the Grundgesetz, our equivalent of a "constitution" - which is btw something very Anglosaxon/French)

"As for the institutions they are literally the only ones allowed to do it legally for other courts to base their decisions on their interpretation.(Constitutional jurisprudence). They do have to follow certain reglamentations from the EU and follow certain principles (not overdo it etc.) when they come up with their interpretations."
I know that, I never implied anything else. I simply disagreed with the statement that they can interpret the law however they want - which, as you said - they cannot. You do not need to explain the legal principles to me, I'm well aware of those.

"There's also a problem with the French Constitutional system since their Constitutional Court jurisprudence is more of a recomendational thing (they can choose not to follow it) which makes it a whole lot less effective and allows shit like this to happen. "
That may or may not be true, I would have to verify that information for myself. The first question for me would be is it recommendational on paper or in reality? Because there's a difference. I also wouldn't necessarily connect that to this specific case. As I said earlier ITT two times, the internet is subject to public domain laws which means "This is the internet, you can't take shit seriously" is not a legally valid argument. (unless you have really REALLY good lawyers or a judge who's willing to overthrow legal principles)

'Europe is so damn racist. in the barclays premiere league they have sections for their white supremacist fans.....'

'it's true, they ask everyone about their politics and social ideology at the gates of the football grounds and then cordon everyone into appropriate mindset zones'

Eh, no.

Firstly, the Barclay's Premier League does not represent every football league in Europe.

Secondly, everything is ticketed so it sounds like an awful amount of trouble to go through if this was the case, which it is not.

Thirdly, most teams have a section of the stadium where their so-called 'hardcore'/die-hard supporters are seated. Just because a fan is seated in this area does not mean that he is a white supremacist.