We're debating it because most of HN is in the United States, where people regularly go around saying far worse things about our President than calling him a "goat."
It's satire, about a political public figure. It's hard to find speech much more protected than that.
Europe does not have free speech. In myriad ways there are restrictions on speech, from prosecution of satire to the reprehensible "Right to be Forgotten" law.
O wouldn't put that in the same category as speech restrictions....
Well, to be pedantic, courts would probably apply more protections to direct political criticism than to mockery of a political figure him/herself. That is, you would receive more protection for: a) "This is a stupid policy that will harm public welfare" than b) "politician X looks like a monkey". But it's close.
Nonsense. Of course it does. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_Con... . Eg see [0] for a (successful) ECtHR case in France under A.10 relating to a similar no-insulting-heads-of-state law.
My guess it the only reason this one is still on the books is that it's almost never enforced (though IANAL). The ECHR doesn't examine laws proactively - someone has to bring a case - but then, that's the same as the US (and in the US it's apparently not unusual for legislators to attempt to pass laws they know will be overturned once actually used[1]...)
> In myriad ways there are restrictions on speech
Sure. Same as in the US: [2]. The restrictions in that article seem broadly in the same areas as those in A.10(2).
I'm not denying that US free speech protection is stronger than Europe - lines are drawn in a slightly different place: the US has stronger protection of free speech, Europe has stronger protection of privacy, among other things. But this is a long way from "Europe does not have free speech".
[0] https://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/2315/en/col...
[1] http://www.mediaite.com/online/tennessee-gov-vetoes-nakedly-...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
I am not a lawyer though, so take my post for what it's worth.
First, there is the case where we're talking (writing actually) about a person who is not reasonably considered a public figure--just a normal person. In this case the person would have to demonstrate that we wrote something about them that:
1. Caused actual damages to them (e.g. Caused them to lose a job, have their house burned down by an angry mob, etc.) 2. Was false
Writing that Joe Bob embezzles money while high on cocaine might result in him getting fired. Perfectly fine thing to write, assuming it's true. But libel if false and it loses him his job.
Justin Beiber and President Obama, on the other hand have both reasonably sought the limelight and would be considered public figures. For them to win a libel case, they would need to pass another hurdle and prove that what we wrote had malicious intent (i.e. that we expected damages to result from our false, damaging written statements).
To prove the third part is almost impossible. Public figures pretty much never expect to win libel cases.
At least, this is what I learned as an undergrad in a journalism law course.
But, the statement does need to be such that that a reasonable person might believe it to be true.
Anyway - Cameron was accused seriously to have received oral sex by the vehicle of a roasted pig just a month ago - and he did the unthinkable - shrug it off. No one was prosecuted in Germany. and i am sure their tabloids reported it.
It of course helped that most people - including those of us who very much would have loved for it to blow up much more than it did - realised that Lord Ashcroft very much had an axe to grind.
Cameron was "insulted" by a whole slew of people that way, considering all the attention the topic got. Erdogan has a single target to go after, legally speaking. And the applicable laws in both cases differ substantially, too.
I've seen people call Obama a monkey, the anti christ, dumbass, marxist, etc.
That was on national TV
Freedom of speech is core to the American political system, tbh I am quite surprised and disappointed to find out Germany is so regressive on speech.
For Merkel to personally get involved and say that the guy should be prosecuted is a hit against freedom of speech in germany, regardless of the outcome.
In this case Merkel was dealt bad cards: A law that should have been removed a long time ago puts the issue on her table. If she had opted to deny consent, it would have been a blow to the principles of separation of powers, the very thing many European governments - including Germany - are criticizing Poland, Hungary and Turkey for violating right now. It would have made her a total hypocrite.
So she has opted to stay out, and taken the opportunity to raise the issue of removing this paragraph.
I wouldnt have come to the same conclusion as Merkel.
And that's exactly as it should be. Free citizens of a free nation have every right to insult anyone they wish.
The deliberation between these freedoms is a matter of the political culture of a society. In Germany the opinion is shifting, and maybe not for the better.