[snehk]

> Yet to many Europeans the idea that free expression is under threat seems odd. Europeans can say almost anything they want, both in theory and in practice.

A journalist in Germany was just sentenced to seven months for posting a meme of a politician where she holds up a sign saying "I hate free speech".

https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/nancy-faeser-afd-...

[croes]

He didn't post a meme, he posted a altered picture which made it look like the politician really said that.

That's called defamation.

Just because he later claimed it's satire doesn't make it satire.

[Ukv]

I believe this is the picture in question (and original): https://www.gbnews.com/media-library/nancy-faeser-photo-befo...

Seven months for that seems insane to me. It looks far more like a meme/satire than an attempt to create a realistic fake, given it's just pure-black impact font and an implausible message ("I hate freedom of speech!") to be holding up on a sign.

[croes]

You have to consider the target audience, they believe German culture gets erased because a discounter sells chocolate bunnies as sitting bunnies instead of Easter bunnies while the leaflet is full of Easter named articles and Milka sells its chocolate bunny under the name Schmunzelhase (Smiling bunny) for decades.

In these circles, false quotes have been repeated as true again and again for years.

A simple “satire” in the article would not have been enough, but it would have had the same effect.

[Ukv]

> In these circles, false quotes have been repeated as true again and again for years.

Even if people did go on to repeat it as if it were a real quote (can't find evidence of this, from a quick search), I don't feel the fact that not everybody got the satire should turn it into defamation, so long as a reasonable person would recognize it as satire and the intent is humor opposed to deception. Should the fact that The Onion/Clickhole articles and quotes have often been circulated by people believing them to be real result in sentences for their editors?

> A simple “satire” in the article would not have been enough, but it would have had the same effect.

Confused by what you mean here. To my understanding Bendels posted the meme on X/Twitter, not in an article. By "would not have been enough" do you mean that even if it were explicitly labelled as satire, it would've still been defamation?

[croes]

A journalist posted a altered photo not a meme.

The photo is based on a real photo of her holding a paper with „we remember“ written on it.

Sorry by article I meant the tweet. A journalist should mention if his posts are facts, an opinion or a satire especially when he knows his audience.

Those satires have lead to insults and death threats in the past and people like him know that.

As a journalist he has to be held to a higher standard when it comes to public posts. Newspapers already have a trust problem

[Ukv]

> A journalist posted a altered photo not a meme.

When there's a blank template of someone holding a sign, and people are adding on messages intended to be humorous/satirical (e.g: https://x.com/Wrdlbrmpfd_Wrdl/status/1618755937355063296) then spreading it on social media, that'd generally be called a meme.

> The photo is based on a real photo of her holding a paper with „we remember“ written on it.

I linked the original and edited version above, yeah.

To be pedantic, Bendels' edit appears to be based on a blank template used by other posts (e.g: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FnrNpDzXgAEsmtI.jpg) and not directly on the original photo itself.

> Those satires have lead to insults and death threats in the past and people like him know that.

People sending death threats or calling for violence should be prosecuted. But I do not think it's reasonable to criminialize satire like this on the basis that it might "lead to insults" from other people.

Or at the very least, if you do hold that view, you should see why others would consider it an impediment on free speech.

[moefh]

> Seven months for that seems insane to me.

It is, but see what the article has to say about that (translated with google translate):

> Among other things, they complain about the inappropriate severity of the justice system against an allegedly satirical statement. What is left unmentioned, however, is that the trial only took place because Bendels previously refused to pay a fine of 210 daily rates imposed by the same district court in November.

I know nothing about this person or this case, but it sounds like he has done this before and refused to pay a fine, so the court said "enough is enough" and sent him to prison.

[Ukv]

True, but 210 daily rates (around $60k for Bendels?) also seems insane for this to me.

[moefh]

It's hard to say without more context. Maybe that was not hist first fine, it just got to that amount after a few "satirical statements" and lower fines.

[Ukv]

I can't find mention of any prior fines, only that "Bendels has no criminal record".

If this was the first fine, would you agree that ~$60k is disproportionate?

[EasyMark]

It should still be a civil case.

[ffsm8]

I think the discussion originates from the fact that if you compare today's Europe to the USA of 20 yrs ago, today's Europe has less free speech.

Things is though, the same would apply to today's Europe vs Europe of 20 yrs ago - and the same if you compared Europe of 20 yrs (more) vs USA of today (less).

Both Europe and USA has lost a lot of their free speech privileges, both via social norms and actual regulations/application of law.

Now, wherever Europe or USA currently comes out on top os - in my person opinion besides the point: its bad either way.

[EasyMark]

I agree. But free speech is ending in the USA as well, Trump wants to jail his critics, especially journalists, and thinks it's treason.

[fabian2k]

That decision might be overturned later, I'd also consider it very questionable. It's in a weird space as it was about libel, but based on edited text in a photo like often used for memes. I think that decision is wrong based on what I know about it, it should be clear enough that this is not a direct quote.

Not defending this specific decision, but you can find individual cases like this in the US as well. Overall the laws in Germany are somewhat more restrictive in certain areas, but I don't think that fundamentally affects free speech.

[lm28469]

> sentenced to seven months

Which he will do exactly 0 months because it's a suspended sentence. Still crazy but nowhere close to "7 months of prison for a meme"

PS: Didn't the US just deport people to a foreign prison because they had tattoos ?

[closewith]

That’s actually pretty close to “7 months of prison for a meme”.

[lm28469]

But it's not, words have meaning. Why did Trump say France should "FREE Marine Lepen" ? She isn't in prison, he probably read "sentenced to XX years" and assumed she was.

[snehk]

> "7 months of prison for a meme"

Quotation marks are usually used if you quote someone. Not if you make up additional things in your head that a person supposedly said.

[lm28469]

"sentenced to seven months for posting a meme", you're the one omitting words and implying things my dude

[pseudony]

Would be better to offer specifics so people can actually look into it rather than take what YOU took from it on face value.

Journalists typically write, not draw. Was there an article ? On which grounds was the journalist sentenced ? So on, so on.

[spiderfarmer]

It's a suspended sentence and Germany has clear laws against defamation, those laws applied here. Saying "it's just a meme" doesn't make it so.

[huntertwo]

And a court saying it’s defamation doesn’t make it a good law. It’s anti free speech.

> it was not published in a satire magazine, there was no prior public dispute with Ms Faeser, and the montage was not easily recognisable as such

This is not a definition of a crime that is compatible with western democracy.

[palata]

> And a court saying it’s defamation doesn’t make it a good law. It’s anti free speech.

Would it be free speech if I convinced 10 teenagers to go on record and say that you sexually abused them? Or would you say it should be illegal for me (and them) to do that?

[huntertwo]

The differences in the two examples would be the damage caused by the speech. Additionally, sexual assault is a crime while hating free speech is not. Are you organizing this conspiracy with an intent to hurt me? Are you making false police reports? Do you believe the accusations yourself?

[palata]

The definition of defamation is that it causes damage.

> Additionally, sexual assault is a crime while hating free speech is not.

Completely missing the point: nobody committed a sexual assault here.

> Are you organizing this conspiracy with an intent to hurt me? Are you making false police reports? Do you believe the accusations yourself?

What kind of questions are those. "I didn't intent to hurt them, and I believed they were consenting" make it okay to have sexual intercourse with a non-consenting person in your book?

The question is more something like: did it hurt the person and was it meant to look like it was true? It's free speech to make fun of Elon Musk because he made nazi salutes. It's not free speech to make fake, realistic video of Trump making nazi salutes and pretend it is real.

[makeitdouble]

https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/04/10/editor-of-germ...

[lopis]

And Germany has taken its stance on Gaza to extreme levels, where publicly defending Palestine's right to exist can cause you to lose your visa. So yeah, things could be better in the free speech area.

[lm28469]

Compared to the US which didn't do any of this...

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czrn57340xlo

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-authorities-arrest-pales...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/06/foreign-stud...

[ben_w]

> And Germany has taken its stance on Gaza to extreme levels, where publicly defending Palestine's right to exist can cause you to lose your visa

In practice, even on this website, I have great difficulty figuring out how to phrase anything I want to say on Palestine and Israel in a way that's not likely to induce vitriol.

Heck, neither could Yitzhak Rabin, in his position as Israel's Prime Minister: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Yitzhak_Rabin

--

Hmm, I've just noticed something: you say "Germany", but some of the news I've been seeing from the USA is people losing their visas by supporting Palestine…

[disgruntledphd2]

> Hmm, I've just noticed something: you say "Germany", but some of the news I've been seeing from the USA is people losing their visas by supporting Palestine…

There was a similar case (though actually had a judge and a court process involved) in Germany recently.

[pjc50]

This is going to be the whataboutery Olympics, isn't it.

That particular case seems egregious, especially the jail part (edit: oh, it's a suspended sentence, so zero jail time). On the other hand a world where news organizations can just photoshop any sign onto any politician and claim they support whatever doesn't seem great either.

But neither does using ICE to snatch people off the streets for making social media posts. (Someone will reply to this with some variant of "oh, but they're immigrants, they don't deserve the freedom to criticize the US", and then we're back at the whataboutery Olympics)

Perhaps it's only worth getting worked up about free speech when the speech is true, authentic and accurate?

(epilogue: this whole topic was at the top of HN for about a minute before it got flagged off, lol)

[redczar]

That last paragraph is nicely stated. I’m going to borrow it.

All societies regulate speech. There is no such thing as free speech in the literal/absolute sense of the word. Probably every society has an instance that someone can point to as stifling speech. Your phrasing succinctly gets to the crux of the matter.

[huntertwo]

Who decides what speech is “true, authentic and accurate”?

In the US, the restrictions are left to things like yelling fire in a crowded theatre. Because that is harmful to society.

The focus should be on the real damage of the speech - not the “authenticity”. Also we should not restrict people from expressing their opinions regardless of whether or not they are authentic.

These ideas are meant to prevent a tyrannical government from jailing individuals because it doesn’t like its speech.

[redczar]

Who decides what speech is “true, authentic and accurate”?

As with all laws and regulations interpretations are handled by the judiciary.

I like the phrasing OP makes because it grounds the discussion of free speech in a more reasonable fashion rather than nitpicking about some extreme situation.

[huntertwo]

The meaning of “true, authentic, and accurate” is easier to twist than “harm to society” - suddenly proclaiming trans people exist is a crime because it is not “true”

[redczar]

As stated I like the phrasing OP used. You are free to use another phrasing. What I’m not going to do is get into a debate on how to precisely define the terms used. One can nitpick any phrasing of any law/regulation. That’s why there are lawyers in every society. But I’m not engaged in a legal discussion at this time. If you don’t like OP’s wording then don’t use it.

[pjc50]

This line actually comes from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States , in which it was ruled that distributing pamphlets protesting the draft was not legal free speech.

> Because that is harmful to society.

So you agree that "harmful to society" is valid reasoning .. which justifies banning things like holocaust denial and incitement to racism?

[huntertwo]

Holocaust denial no, incitements to saying the N word no, but incitements to physically harm people because of their race or ethnicity yes.

I would say the harm of those individual actions don’t rise to the harm of restricting the speech itself, with a bias towards free speech.

[spiderfarmer]

The law is pretty clear. If there was the smallest indication it was satire, he wouldn't have been sentenced.

[pjc50]

Eh, "obviously badly manipulated image posted on twitter" would be a good indicator of satire, if obviously untrue drivel posted on Twitter hadn't just taken over the world.

UK equivalent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_joke_trial

> "Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!!" (for the benefit of my MI5 handler, that is a quotation not a threat)

[spiderfarmer]

So he’s a victim of Poe’s law.

[ghusto]

This is false.

He posted a doctored image to make it look like that, which is a completely different thing, and should definitely be punishable.

[moefh]

> The court concluded that Bendels had altered the lettering and deliberately created the impression that the Interior Minister had made a corresponding statement on freedom of expression.

> [...]

> What is left unmentioned, however, is that the trial only took place because Bendels previously refused to pay a fine of 210 daily rates imposed by the same district court in November.

So I don't see "sentenced to seven months for posting a meme of a politician where she holds up a sign saying 'I hate free speech'".

What I see is "mislead people into thinking the politician said something she did not, and then refused to pay the fine imposed by the court".

[seydor]

Germany needs to amend their unfree speech laws , it's like a self-inflicted punishment now. The world is not asking for them to do that anymore

[watwut]

In the sense that USA wants Germany to become far right nazi country again, yes. Otherwise, no.

[spiderfarmer]

And you speak for "the world"?

I for one am pretty happy every law that curbs racism. It has worked great so far. The people that play victim are just cosplaying and looking for attention.

[seydor]

people who say that are usually happy with one kind of racism (e.g against palestinians) but not another

[exe34]

Do they really hate Palestinians because of their race? Jews and Palestinians are mostly the same race, their difference is religious and cultural. it's important not to dilute words.

[isolli]

German politicians are known for lodging countless complaints for the slightest insults online. [0]

The 60 minutes segment was also quite revealing of the (in my opinion, poor) state of free speech in Germany. [1]

As Bill Maher said, "Germany is so afraid to look like their Nazi past, that they're knocking on people's doors, taking people's phones and computers if you insult people online."

[0] https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/gewalt-gegen-poli...

[1] https://x.com/60Minutes/status/1891282394440732787

[froidpink]

source?

[mzhaase]

https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/nancy-faeser-afd-...

[InsideOutSanta]

It's a defamation case. Journalist David Bendels posted a doctored picture of politician Nancy Faeser holding up a sign saying, "Ich hasse die Meinungsfreiheit" ("I hate freedom of speech"). Faeser filed criminal charges against Bendels for "üble Nachrede und Verleumdung" (defamation).

Bendels was sentenced to a 7 months suspended sentence and a fine of 1500 Euros, has to remove the image and apologize to Faeser. Bendels will appeal the decision.

I'm going to guess that this will be overturned on appeal. Every country has stupid courts that make bad decisions. I think this is kind of an edge case between satire and defamation, since Bendels is ostensibly a real journalist who reports on real facts—it seems odd to me that he would publish doctored pictures. Still, I think this will lean towards satire in the end, since I don't think most reasonable people would assume the picture of Faeser was real.

You can read about it here (German):

https://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/nancy-faeser-erwirkt-...

[croes]

He just had to clarify is was doctored before he posted it, so it seemed like a real picture, that's defamation.

[sadeshmukh]

Having to clarify satire ruins its point. In a case against a man who creatd a fake Facebook page of his police department and was subsequently raided, the Onion submitted this amicus brief: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-293/242292/2022...

It's really quite interesting to read at some point, but I believe that nobody should have to "clarify it was doctored". Because that image was also very obviously fake - it's literally a meme template, and nobody should be prosecuted for that. I do have to question your judgement if you believe that is real.

[croes]

It’s not my judgment in question, it’s the journalist‘s target audience’s.

They believe those things because they don’t see it obviously fake.

Obviously is highly subjective.

There is a reason why satire accounts have to clearly state they are satire and why things like /s exist.

The judge came to the conclusion it wasn’t obvious.

[sadeshmukh]

I honestly don't really understand how it is not obvious, so I question if those decisions are made in bad faith. It's literally a meme template, and that's somehow not obvious?

I'm not speaking from a legal standpoint, I'm speaking from a common sense moral one. We cannot cater to the most mentally challenged in society to make sure they cannot harm themselves.

Satire is entirely ruined once you put a /s behind it. Let me quote the Onion here -

The court’s decision suggests that parodists are in the clear only if they pop the bal- loon in advance by warning their audience that their parody is not true. But some forms of comedy don’t work unless the comedian is able to tell the joke with a straight face. Parody is the quintessential example. Parodists intentionally inhabit the rhetorical form of their target in order to exaggerate or implode it—and by doing so demonstrate the target’s illogic or absurd- ity. Put simply, for parody to work, it has to plausibly mimic the original.

[doublerabbit]

https://x.com/M_Simonyan/status/1909968556332097681

[graemep]

I do not know about that but people have had police raids for calling the head of the german Green Party an idiot: https://www.ft.com/content/27626fa8-3379-4b69-891d-379401675...

The Online Safety Act in the UK has been discussed here before and it is part of a general trend to prevent "harmful" speech including specifically "legal but harmful speech".

[InsideOutSanta]

After the man posted the image, Robert Habeck (the politician in question) made a criminal complaint. When the Criminal Police investigated the case, they found additional evidence against the man, which prompted the search. His house was not searched for calling Habeck an idiot, but calling him an idiot triggered the investigation, which triggered the search.

[graemep]

The politician in question has filed more than 700 criminal complaints about what people have said about him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Habeck#Hate_crimes

Also, AFAIK while calling him an idiot might not be the direct reason for the raid, it is a crome in itself, right?

[InsideOutSanta]

>The politician in question has filed more than 700 criminal complaints about what people have said about him

I'm not sure why that matters in the context of this discussion. He is free to file as many criminal complaints as he wants, no? Living in a free society means that idiots can do idiotic things like filing 700 criminal complaints.

[graemep]

The problem is that merely insulting someone can be a crime at all so he not just being idiotic. Those complaints lead to investigations:

https://www.dw.com/en/germany-greens-habeck-presses-charges-... (scroll down to explanation).

its not the only European country where this is possible, at least in theory: https://www.politico.eu/article/european-countries-where-ins...

[xvokcarts]

The UK folks don't seem to feel so free to say stuff either: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/704467

[mvdtnz]

No, a journalist was given a suspended sentence for intentionally spreading misinformation about a politician.