[sneak]

This wasn’t a 1A case, it was a civil defamation suit. He won because they failed to prove defamation, NOT because the judge threw out the lawsuit because of a violation of constitutional rights.

Separately: saying something shitty or unpopular that you disagree with isn’t someone abusing their rights to free expression. Expressing unpopular viewpoints that others consider abusive is exactly the point of such rights.

There’s a REALLY BIG reason it isn’t “freedom of expression, except for expressing racial hatred”, and it’s not because we like racism. Germany sometimes bans entire political parties that they declare unconstitutional. Now imagine that power in the hands of Trump. You can see what Putin did to Navalny for a preview.

[shadowgovt]

Perhaps interesting here is that some of the things he said were definitely not defensible via "truth is an affirmative defense." But it's ultimately up to the jury, and they can also find him innocent because a reasonable person wouldn't be offended by outlandish accusations.

(Ultimately, though, they can find him innocent for any reason. If they decided he should walk because you can't legally offend cops, that's fine too.)

[sneak]

“walk” refers to criminal prosecution where the alternative is going to prison. This was a civil trial, he was not being prosecuted. The police, despite raiding his house, never charged him with a crime. He was not “found innocent” in a civil suit. He was innocent the whole time even if he lost this trial, it’s just a matter of monetary damage.

[TheCoelacanth]

Truth is far from the only defense.

Opinion is not defamatory. Satire is not defamatory.

With public officials like police, even false factual statements are not defamatory unless you knew they were false and lied about it specifically to hurt them.

[waysa]

> Germany sometimes bans entire political parties

You make it sound like Germany bans political parties every other year.

Germany formally only ever banned two parties:

- Socialist Reich Party (SRP), 1952 - Communist Party of Germany (KPD), 1956

For context: The Federal Republic of Germany was founded in 1949.

There are current discussions about banning - or evaluating a potential ban of - the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD). If the ban went through (I think it won't), it would be the first in 70 years.

[sneak]

That’s just an example. Germany’s censorship (a violation of human rights to peaceful free expression) doesn’t just stop at political parties.

The fact that they are even discussing a ban of AfD shows how ridiculously dangerous such powers are when held by the state. The AfD is disgusting but until and unless they take up arms, speech is speech. “First they came for the racists, and I didn’t speak up because I was not a racist. Then they came for the publishers of violent video games…”

There is no power that you can give to the state that they will not eventually abuse at their convenience. It positively astounds me that Germans do not understand this, given the nation’s history.

[hermanzegerman]

Many state AfD Organisations are classified as Right Extremists that want to violate our constitution, that's because they discussed concrete plans of violating constitutional rights of citizens.

We already experienced what happens when you don't stop antidemocratic parties, and we don't want to run the experiment another time.

It astounds me that you don't understand this simple concept.

Also the US Administration currently is a beacon of free speech, threatening senators with the death penalty for reminding officers that they don't have to comply with unlawful orders

[ceejayoz]

> Now imagine that power in the hands of Trump.

The Germans would argue such powers prevent the Trumps.