[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.