> 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-...
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.
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.
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.
> 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?
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?
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.
Yes I suppose the question is 1) did it rise to the illegal level of harm (I would say no in the example of the meme) and 2) was it intended to believed (I would also say no here). These would vary country to country here based on precedence and culture.
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.
> I actually don’t think your example of the fake video is a jailable offense in the USA
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?