The thing about Europe: it's the actual land of the free now

> 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-...

He didn't post a meme, he posted a altered picture which made it look like the politician really said that.

That's called defamation.

Just because he later claimed it's satire doesn't make it satire.

I believe this is the picture in question (and original): https://www.gbnews.com/media-library/nancy-faeser-photo-befo...

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.

You have to consider the target audience, they believe German culture gets erased because a discounter sells chocolate bunnies as sitting bunnies instead of Easter bunnies while the leaflet is full of Easter named articles and Milka sells its chocolate bunny under the name Schmunzelhase (Smiling bunny) for decades.

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.

> In these circles, false quotes have been repeated as true again and again for years.

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?

A journalist posted a altered photo not a meme.

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

> A journalist posted a altered photo not a meme.

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.