[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?

[moefh]

I have no idea, and I'd have to know more context before thinking my opinion matters. For example, just off the top of my head: (1) What are the fines for comparable things in other countries (in an out of Europe)? (2) "Bendels has no criminal record" -- does that mean he was never convicted of defamation, or is that a red herring because defamation a civil (not criminal) matter?

I can't help to notice how with just a little bit of context we've come from reacting to "A journalist in Germany was just sentenced to seven months for posting a meme" to deciding if a fine was disproportionate.

With all that, the only sensible answer I can give is that I don't know. It's useless to be outraged by something that might be a non-story.

[Ukv]

> I have no idea, and I'd have to know more context before thinking my opinion matters. For example, just off the top of my head: (1) What are the fines for comparable things in other countries (in an out of Europe)?

Even in Germany, I don't believe a meme like this one would typically incur any fine.

> (2) "Bendels has no criminal record" -- does that mean he was never convicted of defamation, or is that a red herring because defamation a civil (not criminal) matter?

My understanding is that he has now been convicted of criminal defamation (so it should probably be past tense), but had no such prior convictions.

> I can't help to notice how with just a little bit of context we've come from reacting to "A journalist in Germany was just sentenced to seven months for posting a meme" to deciding if a fine was disproportionate.

I don't personally believe there should have been any fine or prison sentence for posting the meme. I ask you whether you think the fine seems disproportionate based on current information because I see that as the smallest and most likely concession for you to make, assuming you can be intellectually honest, not because the fine being disproportionate is the full extent of my stance.

> With all that, the only sensible answer I can give is that I don't know. It's useless to be outraged by something that might be a non-story.

We've got the original post, the court's sentence and reasoning, and most other information you want to know could be researched online. There has to be some point at which we start publicly discussing an issue - that doesn't prohibit us from updating our views if there really is some decisive new evidence.

[moefh]

> I see that as the smallest and most likely concession for you to make, assuming you can be intellectually honest, not because the fine being disproportionate is the full extent of my stance.

That would make sense for someone with all the relevant context about this story. While I agree with you that "most other information [I] want to know could be researched online", that would take a lot of time (I can't read German) and energy which would be best spent learning about way more important stuff happening in the world right now.

I've often seen people criticize scientists for not engaging with crackpots, with the argument if what they're saying is really dumb it should be easy to show that. I see that as naive -- there's only so much time in the day, you can't disprove every crackpot, so pick your battles.

This case feels like the same thing -- it started with someone claiming that a journalist was jailed for sharing a meme, then I learned this is a complete distortion. So I assume I'm dealing with a crackpot (not you, but the person who made the original claim), and so I refuse to spend more energy on this.

And if I'm being honest, I'm only writing this reply because it doesn't feel good to read "assuming you can be intellectually honest" while engaging in what I assumed was a cordial exchange, so I can't help but defend myself -- which I think I'll stop now and just let go.