[danbruc]

There are no easy definitions for everything, the world is complex, deal with it. It is the same, for example, with pornography. One and the same image might either be pornography or a work of art, one and the same image might either be a holiday picture from the beach or child pornography, and you would be unable to tell the difference just from looking at the images.

In some situations it is just more practical to leave things vague and deal with the facts on a case by case basis once the need arises instead of trying forever - and probably failing - to come up with an airtight definitions covering each and every edge case.

[blattimwind]

Actually Germany has a pretty clear definition and precedent of this and it is certainly nowhere near to being congruent with what Americans call hate speech. This likely makes the translation "hate speech" a factual error.

[danbruc]

I don't know how good or bad the German definition of hate speech is, my point was more that even if there is or were no precise definition, it would still not be a huge problem. This just seems to be a rather popular misconceptions that laws require and are not useful without perfect definitions for everything. In reality there is a lot for variation, some things are totally nailed down, some things are intentionally left open to interpretation.

[always_good]

The less something like "hate speech" is nailed down, the more the law can be used to criminalize anything.

There absolutely is a problem with these sorts of laws.

For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obscenity.

[foepys]

The justice system in Germany is operating completely different than the US justice system. While in the US precedent is one of the most important factors, German courts try to apply "common sense" (quite literally). Laws take this into account and leave a lot more wiggle room for the courts. Thus the laws in Germany occur strange to Americans that only know "if it's not explicitly forbidden, it's allowed".