[_heimdall]

I've never actually understood the difference, curious if you can help fill in a few blanks for me.

How is expression different than speech here? Is a European really free to express themselves when they are limited to expression that the government approves (or hasn't banned)?

It feels like a lazy attempt at rebranding speech so they can claim its free...with government restrictions.

[malermeister]

You are free to express your opinions ("I don't like immigrants from Africa"), but you are not free to choose any manner of speech, as there's restrictions in certain areas, such as hate speech or inciting violence ("Kill the N-words!")

[_heimdall]

Isn't that full of loopholes though?

It seems like that would allow someone in Germany to say "I think the Nazis were 100% right in what they did to the Jews", though my understanding is that would be very much illegal under German law.

Similarly, would it be illegal to say "Kill the N-words!" but not "I think all the N-words should be killed!"?

Obvious caveat - this is a highly contentious topic. Thank you for helping me better understand European laws specifically. For anyone passing by, I'm obviously not condoning the opinions of the example statements above.

[olivierduval]

Actually, that's why there's judge to interpret the Law

In Europe, in general (and that's something that look a bit strange to US it seem), we judge on THE SPIRIT of the Law more than on THE TEXT. So a European court would surely consider "hate speech" independantly of how it is phrased exactly

However "I think the Nazis were 100% right in what they did to the Jews" is IMHO NOT "hate speech" but an opinion. What would be "hate speech" would be more "We have to kill the XXXXXX" (insert any race, color, religion, sex....) or "All the XXX must die" (different phrasing, same idea).

"Hate speech" is, well, spreading hate against some people. The judge will decide case by case. Example: some humorist have some racists jokes but the context will make clear if it "hate speech" (1st degree) or "humor" (2nd degree)

[_heimdall]

This has always been a huge hangup for me with laws in general. If a law isn't clearly spelled out enough to be able to know when I would be in the wrong before I act (or speak), I'm effectively at the whims of the legal system and I can't avoid it.

The idea that two reasonable people can so easily read the examples I gave as hate speech or free expression of opinion feels very wrong. Laws should be much more clear if they are meant to actually serve in the best interests of the public.

[malermeister]

It certainly is a lot more ambiguous than absolute free speech, yes. I think your example would still count as hate speech inciting violence against black people. The Nazi one I'm not sure off the top of my head, to be honest.