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-...
Journalists typically write, not draw. Was there an article ? On which grounds was the journalist sentenced ? So on, so on.
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".
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 ?
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)
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.
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.
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-...
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...
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…
> [...]
> 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".
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)
Also, AFAIK while calling him an idiot might not be the direct reason for the raid, it is a crome in itself, right?
> 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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?
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.
> 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.
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.
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?
Defamation is still not a criminal statute in the US - it’s a civil statute. The other things I mentioned are actual crimes that the US government can imprison you for - I actually don’t think your example of the fake video is a jailable offense in the USA without some sort of conspiracy attached to it.
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.
And I don't say that the US are wrong: that's how it is in the US. Now that's not how it is in Germany, and maybe it doesn't mean that Germany is wrong?
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...
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.
There was a similar case (though actually had a judge and a court process involved) in Germany recently.
I disagree that this is a problem per se. Pretty much all jurisdictions across the world have laws like that. It really depends on how exactly the law is implemented.
In fact, American libel and defamation laws are, in some ways, more problematic than many European ones simply because of how the legal system works. If you are sued in a place with no SLAPP laws, the mere lawsuit can be so expensive that it can have a chilling effect on free speech, even if the defendant ultimately wins the case.
(I do agree that laws singling out politicians are stupid.)
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.
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...
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
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.
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.
Earlier, for instance, you said "it sounds like he has done this before and refused to pay a fine". Could you not similarly say whether, based on the information we have now, it sounds to you as if the fine is reasonable?
My understanding of the context is that:
1. Nancy Faeser was photographed holding a sign saying "WE REMEMBER"
2. That picture was turned into a blank meme template to fill with text intended to be satirical/humorous (e.g: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FnrNpDzXgAEsmtI.jpg - not actually humorous, but intended to be by its author)
3. Among those posting memes was David Bendels, who put "I hate freedom of speech!" (in black impact-font text) on the sign and posted it on X/Twitter
4. "Faeser was reportedly alerted to the post by the police, and subsequently filed a criminal complaint"
5. Bendels, who "has no prior criminal convictions", was initially ordered by the court to pay his daily income times 210
6. Bendels "filed an objection against the penalty, which automatically led to a trial"
7. The court considered the Bendels "made a deliberately false factual statement", and Bendels subsequently recieved a seven-month suspended prison sentence (plus a €1500 fine, and must "apologise in writing to Faeser")
> 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.
The original claim in this chain was:
> > 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".
Which still seems true to me. I don't think anyone here is a crackpot.
> 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.
Sorry - that probably came across as more accusatory than I intended. Meant to be read more as reasoning for my belief that you could admit it seems disproportionate based on current information, as opposed to an accusation that you haven't been intellectually honest thus far.
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.
Context matters a lot. It's different if we talk crap at home with our friends vs. broadcasting a message to 10M people.
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.
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.
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.
