It appears the fight over Lebensraum is now being waged over liquor store shelf space. An American couple has triggered a free speech controversy in Italy after complaining about the sale of wine with the image of Hitler on the label or other labels for “Mein Kampf” wine or wine with the motto “Ein volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer” (one people, one empire, one Fuhrer). Michael Hirsch, a lawyer from Philadelphia, complained about the sale of such items. In Italy, prosecutors are looking into the matter for possible criminal charges. The question is whether the producer should have a right to supply such bottles and customers should have the right to buy such bottles.
I certainly agree with Hirsch (whose wife’s family has holocaust survivors) that the sale of these bottles are offensive and I also agree with the decision to complain to the local supermarket for carrying such offensive items. I would have done the same thing in complaining to the establishment.
However, it is not clear when Hirsch went to the media whether he was demanding action by the government even though such products are lawful in the United States. Indeed, I recently represented a vodka manufacturer which successfully challenged a bar on sales due to the alleged offensive nature of its label.
The media coverage led Andrea Riccardi, the Italian integration minister, to issue a statement “to reassure our American friends who visit our country that our Constitution and our culture rejects racism, anti-Semitism and Nazi fascism.” For her part, Prosecutor Mario Giulio Schinaia said that she is looking into possible criminal charges.
We have previously discussed limitations on free speech in countries like Germany following World War II — crimes that include any Nazi symbols or material that have led to arrests for things like ringtones. Obviously, critics of the wine are concerned with more than a few skinheads getting blitzkrieged on Hitler schnapps. It is hard to believe that the wine is being bought simply as a novelty by most of these customers and is part of a resurgence of fascist political groups in Europe, particularly in countries like Germany, France, and Greece.
I have been a long critic of such laws as doing little but forcing speech underground and making martyrs out of fascists who simply alter symbols slightly to get around the restrictions. I continue to maintain that, even in countries with fascist histories like Italy and Germany, the only solution to bad speech is more speech. Censorship historically has done little to change minds. People have a basic right to express their political viewpoints and to associate with like-minded people in the political realm.
The wine controversy comes at a time when some legislators are seeking to decriminalize the creation of fascist parties in Italy.
The stories on the wine controversy quote prosecutors as citing a crime in Italy for “apologising for fascism.” This curiously worded law is the barrier not only to free speech but to the creation of political parties. By “apologising,” the Italians appear to mean something closer to “defending” or “advocating.” As a civil libertarian, I have considerable concerns with such content-based regulation of speech. While I share the concern over the resurgence of fascism, I tend to gravitate toward greater than less free speech in such cases. Moreover, the wine controversy shows how far such limitations can extend. It could include parody or artistic expression as well as political speech.
Notably, Austria recently dropped a criminal probe and allowed Hitler wine to be sold in that country. His decision could lead to some interesting conflicts with teeshirts featuring the wine but showing Hitler in circumvention of national laws. For those seeking to limit speech, the danger of liquor lebensraum is that it could spread to an array of consumer items glorifying the Third Reich.
One producer is Roland Marte, 48, who produces an array of Hitler bottles including schnapps. He has described the line as “Nostalgic bottles from a former historical great.”
The fact that an American couple triggered this debate is ironic since these wines would be entirely protected in the United States. Once again, it is not clear that the Hirsch’s did anything other than raise awareness of an obnoxious product. However, prosecutors should not be involved in such matters in my view.
What do you think?
Source: Telegraph
ARE:
how can you smash them if they belong to someone else? Property rights are a pillar or should be a pillar of any free society. You cannot go into a store and smash something you disagree with, that is worse than the symbol to which you object.
A proper government should protect life, liberty and property.
If you call a black man a nigger to his face, it is NOT a violation of free speech if he smashes you in the mouth. The same holds true for these items, and I would urge any person who sees such a thing on the shelf to take matters into their own hands. WE should not rely on the state to take care of such matters. Then if you are arrested, I think that a good campaign could be mounted to drop the charges. I would not stick around to be arrested in the first place. After losing this product, I think that the problem will take care of itself and the seller will decide it is not worth it to carry the product.
There are all kinds of property which are illegal and are not protected. I have personally been the victim of KKK terrorism and the cops in Houston did nothing at all. Indeed we later found out they encouraged such actions. So this is not exactly unheard of in the USA.
“WWII is seven decades past and the horrors stemming from it directly, only exist in the memories of old, dying people. ”
” The human is always focused on the realities of the present. rather than the horrors of the ever distancing past. Hitler, a name synonymous with hatred and destruction, becomes a sickly romantic vision of a savior undone, by those frustrated with their lot in life. ” ~Mike Spindell
———————————————————————
I rarely disagree with you Mike S. and even now it is not a disagreement as much as a quantum of understanding to add to your thought. There are horrors, ever anew, each time someone pretends that it never happened. Each time that a potential moment of healing and recognition goes by un-addressed and un-fullfilled. I am not a ‘Jew’ in the strict sense of the word. I was born into and raised a Christian…stock of the Jewish tree as all Christians are. I have however, cared for those whose tatooed arms are hardly the first clue that they lived through such a damning experience. And the ignoring, the pretending, the romanticising serves only to drive underground the great and un-hideable knowledge that the survivors will never be able to pretend away and a truth that should never be forgotten.
The greatest misunderstanding made by man is that of time. Time is the thing that exists only as a tool to understanding. Events and their repercussions are forever.
That said, leave the label alone. Let it be. It is appropriate to have flags so that we know the enemy.
This is a vexing question that has been around ever since warfare. After WWII, i fully supported the military government which banned all such symbols and put Nazi party members on trial and hung a number of them. I think that the Allies hung too few and should have executed at least another hundred thousand or more, especially all officers in the SS and Gestapo and all leading members of the Nazi Party. Unfortunately, the Brits were more interested in making war against the Commies than securing the peace, so they turned a blind eye to such folks and used them. The US then followed their lead enthusiastically.
After any war, there is a need to supress the enemy and restrict civil liberties and rights. The question is how long and how far to go. I think we have to look at history to get some answers. The period after the US Civil War required forceful action against the Confederates. There was in fact actual warfare going on in Reconstruction between the Union forces and the KKK mostly along the lines of irregular warfare and terrorism. The end of Reconstruction, meant the victory of the South, and it took one hundred years to win the final battle. That was a major failure. In Yugoslavia after the war, the League of Communists established a one party state which restricted such symbols and curtailed civil liberties and speech. I could see the reason and point for that and would have supported it. Unfortunately, they kept the system in place and forced all history and passions underground, so that when the dictatorship was released, none of the issues had been dealth in the open, and the state broke up into a civil war.
I think that there is a golden mean between these two examples. The question becomes for now, are such symbols a threat to democratic functioning? If so, then I support their supression and the people who display them. For the time being, I think that such bottles should be destroyed by those who object to them by smashing them, or defacing them. Just as the law allows for such things as fighting words, I think that things such as this qualify on that basis. It is up to the people to take a hand in stopping such things, and I am loathe to have the state do it for us. Then the prosecutor can exercise discretion for those who destroy such things.
I am sort of curious as to who would purchase wine with a name like that. Wouldnt they be embarrassed/shamed? And how good could the wine be? The dregs of society usually are the ones who embrace that crap anyway.
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/106409/jewish-blood-is-cheap
Just a follow-up to my comment above.
“The irony is that the insult to
Americanshumans is you. ”Just a suggestion.
The teaching of history has always been a political, rather than reality-based profession, when done on the mass level. WWII is seven decades past and the horrors stemming from it directly, only exist in the memories of old, dying people. The Axis Powers perpetrated horrors on their citizens and their nations. To combat them the Allies perpetrated horrors in defense. The wars aftermath led to a massive rebuilding of former enemies, with new enemies developed in a “Cold War”. War criminals with certain skills were absolved in the pragmatic need to fight a new enemy. The need to teach the lessons learned from WWII fell victim to the need to strengthen alliances against the new enemy.
Years past, new generations arose and witnesses died with age. The human is always focused on the realities of the present. rather than the horrors of the ever distancing past. Hitler, a name synonymous with hatred and destruction, becomes a sickly romantic vision of a savior undone, by those frustrated with their lot in life. And so it goes.
Banning this loathsome expression of nostalgia only hides the truth of the fact that a part of humanity is still attracted to the sick certainties that Fascism supplies. Rather than directing energies towards hiding this predilection of the authoritarian mind, we must openly discuss its widespread implications, if we are indeed capable of having such a discussion.
Perhaps too, non-Jews of open mind can understand why a man such as myself, born in America at the end of WWII, growing up in an America where hatred of a person just for being Jewish was still acceptable in many venues,
still maintains a sense of vigilance, rather than full trust in my fellow citizens. History has shown that it can indeed happen here, however unlikely that scenario may be.
FT:
“Crybaby American Jew – Thanks for making us just a little more hated in the world asshat.”
*********************
Congratulations. You have managed — in one simple sentence — to insult Jews, Americans, and the rest of the world. The irony is that the insult to Americans is you.
Bravo!
mespo,
Lousy is one way to put it. I had some at a tasting one time and my nose grew out of the side of my head for a week. Here’s a link to a picture of that label: http://www.theartistlabels.com/mouton/1973.html
why do people hate the French?!?!?!
and yet they cannot stay away!
“Good wine tends to come in bottles with tasteful labels. Quality vintners don’t want their product associated with ugly imagery.”
******************
Pablo Picasso did a very fine label for Chateau Mouton-Rothschild. Baron Philippe de Rothschild, owner of Mouton, asked Pablo Picasso to design the label that was released shortly after Picasso’s death. The 1973 vintage goes for about $200.00 a bottle. Lousy wine; great label.
Prof.,
Nothing I can add to that except a “yep”. Silence is not just a form of censorship. It can be an insidious form of propaganda as well. The only way to truly clean our societal dirty laundry is to scrub it vigorously with discourse and air it out and exposing it to the cleansing sunshine of reason.
***************
Berliner,
Excellent point about the history of Gaul versus the history of Germania. They (the Celts in Gaul) were far more organized and working as a relatively homogeneous culture far longer than the Germanic tribes. However, it reminds me of something John Cleese once said about Britain during the Falkland Islands War. When asked about it, he responded with something along the lines of “We’re fighting a bunch of Argentinians over sheep. It’s a bit ridiculous. If we’re going to fight anyone, it should be our natural enemy which is, of course, the French.”
Ah, some holy not-water (“mein chianti”) for the bully religion aficionados.
“… Germans have traditionally attacked France …”
That is actually a fairly recent (in historical terms) stereotype. France was a unified state and a military world power for most of medieval and all of early modern history while Germany was a loose conglomeration of quarreling states until 1870. It was much more common for France to stray across the border, as they did 1870.
Regarding the original point:
It’s not as if we Germans think that “Hitler wine” or a swastika on a model plane will pave the way for the coming of the Forth Reich, it is more of a cultural taboo.
Most Germans react to non-historical use of nazi symbolism like most Americans react to inappropriate public nudity.
And since laws reflect to a certain degree the culture that enacted them, the breach of these taboos are sanctioned with penalties.
Crybaby American Jew – Thanks for making us just a little more hated in the world asshat.
I have often wondered why Hitler chose France to attack early in the war. Must have liked the Beaujolais.
Germans have traditionally attacked France, going back to the days when the Alemanni had at the Roman Empire cities in Gaul. Fact is, “France” got its name from the Frankish people (as in “Frankfurt”) who overran the Western edge of the empire after the Romans turned their attention to Constantinople and the east. So Hitler was just following a family tradition.
I buy wine for the taste, and I’m not above spending big. Good wine tends to come in bottles with tasteful labels. Quality vintners don’t want their product associated with ugly imagery. So I’d wager that this wine and schnapps is crap. How big of a market is there for people who want to buy a bottle for the novelty and/or shock value? Will Nazi enthusiasts buy this more than once? Will the people who decide what to put on store shelves order shipments more than once? Especially if antagonized wine-shoppers start defacing the labels with indelible markers? That’s what I’d do if I ever saw this crap in a store. Seeing as how I live in a province with a socialist-controlled (but not exclusively so) liquor distribution system, I don’t foresee that happening, though.
I am particularly fond of Sonderkommando bubbly…..it is the blood red cherry on the icing on the cake…..
I have often wondered why Hitler chose France to attack early in the war. Must have liked the Beaujolais.
Come on…. If you don’t like it…Don’t buy it….. If the store selling it is offensive to you don’t shop there…… Are you not going to drink vodka because Russia was communist?