[biggerbistro]

Freedom of speech (which Germany does not have) is a core tenet of democracy. If the government can police what we say then it follows that they can prevent those from being elected that they do not agree with. For example: what if we made liberal values into hatespeech, how likely do you think it would be for the democrats to win the next election? Any country without true freedom of speech is autocracy in disguise.

[alkonaut]

What is it that makes Germany not have freedom of speech?

Most liberal democracies have freedom of speech even though they have laws against libel/slander/hate speech and so on.

Next you go on to say that countries without freedom of speech are autocracies in disguise - implying Germany is an autocracy... not sure what to make of that. Are you implying that e.g either you live in a democracy and you can hate-speak, or you don't live in a democracy?

From the last paragraph I get the feeling you live in re US and take great pride in it being a true democracy because of its lack of hate speech laws (libel/slander laws exist). I wouldn't worry so much about politicians being able to limit hate speech in a place where elected officials draw the election district lines, effectively choosing their voters, where entire groups of citizens (such as prison inmates) can't vote at all, and where the executive branch of government doesn't have popular support even on Election Day.

I'm no fan of hate speech laws myself, but I consider it quite useless to define democracy as not being able to coexist with them.

[mc32]

Do you recall the German Boehmermann who was almost jailed because he made fun of a _foreign_ leader?

That limits free speech. It's not hateful but it's political.

[alkonaut]

Someone being not jailed to me sounds like the laws actually did protect his speech as satire?

That fact aside, it's certainly problematic to have laws against insulting a foreign leader (Erdogan in this case). It must be noted of course that this particular type of insult (e.g calling someone a child molester) is probably enough for accusations of libel/slander in other countries as well, whether or not they have that odd "foreign leader" paragraph Germany has.

[lr4444lr]

Okay, how about Germar Rudolf as an example?

[alkonaut]

Holocaust denier? I think its a bit of a thoughtcrime, but I do have some understanding where they are coming from - or, at least why it's now hard to make a popular argument that this law should be abandoned.

I think adults should be able to say/hear what they want.

[biggerbistro]

Germany has "volksverhetzung" which amounts to hatespeech laws. To me it seems like an intentionally broad law banning "incitement of hatred", a noble goal for sure, but still not free speech. They also have laws against holocaust denial (again, noble intent) but that is not free speech. They also have anti-nazi laws ("the distribution or public use of symbols of unconstitutional groups") which again is not free speech. Somehow the US allows all of these forms of speech but has maintained its position as a pretty decent place to live, even for minority immigrants. Free speech is a binary despite what the detractors will try to claim. If someone wants to run a nazi political platform it is up to the public to make the judgement call to not vote for them.