MS will ban Forza players who add the confederate flag to their digital cars

James McPherson, a Princeton Civil War historian says: “Probably 90 percent, maybe 95 percent of serious historians of the Civil War would agree on the broad questions of what the war was about and what brought it about and what caused it, which was the increasing polarization of the country between the free states and the slave states over issues of slavery, especially the expansion of slavery.”"

Look at the secession documents from the states:

At the very onset, on December 20, 1860, South Carolina declared that President-elect Abraham Lincoln’s “opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery.”

On January 7, 1861, the ordinance signed in Montgomery that “it is the desire and purpose of the people of Alabama to meet the Slaveholding States of the South, who may approve such purpose, in order to frame a provisional as well as permanent government upon the principles of the Constitution of the United States.”

On February 2, 1861, Texas declared its decision to be “based upon the unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color—a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of the Divine Law.”

On March 9, 1861, Arkansas’s George B. Smoote added a resolution: “Resolved, that the platform on the party known as the Black Republican Party contains unconstitutional dogmas, dangerous in their tendency and highly derogatory to the rights of slave states, and among them the insulting, injurious and untruthful enunciation of the right of the African race of their country to social and political equality with the whites.”

On April 17, 1861 latecomer Virginia, provoked by Lincoln’s raising troops to suppress the already seceded states, declared “Lincoln’s opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery” as it cut ties with Washington. Tennessee was the 11th and last, its population divided on secession (eastern Tennesseans generally opposed it), but not on the slave issue.

I agree with regards to private companies banning racist symbols, but the top comment was talking about anti hate-speech _laws_, which seem like a departure from my understanding of the first amendment. If a law against displaying the Confederate battle flag can be justified without a change to the constitution, then it really does become a slippery slope when determining what other unpopular expressions the first amendment fails to protect.

Ah yes, Mexicans, famously known for subjugating Americans under slavery for centuries and denying Americans Civil Rights for more.

AFAIK Germany's anti hate speech laws revolve around the use of national socialist related lexicon and symbolism. I think it is perfectly reasonable that a line is drawn in this case, regarding where free speech goes to far - i.e. fascism is never OK.

Whether the goal of these censorship policies in other countries / companies, is something that should probably be determined on a case-by-case basis. Generally your question brings to mind 2 more questions I would ask you in turn for elaboration:

1) Do you think there should be a line drawn anywhere to say that this is the absolute limit of free speech? E.g. being able to say that some people are less valuable as human beings arguably brings little value any discussion. 2) Do you believe that symbols may change overtime to represent ideas that perhaps do not relate as much to their original meaning as a symbol? I'm talking about the confederate flag here. Granted, I'm not a US citizen, but I do not understand want possible purpose the confederate flag could serve in today's age, other than as an acknowledgement of antiquated values and ideas no longer endorsed by today's culture? Maybe 20, 30 years ago, not as many people really cared whether the confederate flag had anything to do with racism or slavery. But now, its meaning is arguably more hostile, just due to the way it is used as a counter to the BLM movement and other related anti-racism movements.

So, why would some one honestly use the confederate flag as a artistic symbol in this way today? Just as no-one would use the SS lightning bolt as an icon or symbol in Europe and expect to not get a reaction from people. In these cases, I would argue that doing is more an act of ignorance than it is an act of freedom of speech.

Disclaimer: I am a EU resident in Germany who knows next to nothing about censorship law in this country - this is my humble and probably misinformed opinion. Any knowledgeable Germans please feel free to correct my interpretation.