I'm pretty sure Germany while having a reputation for being very privacy focus makes more data requests per captia than any goverment.
> DHS Authorities Are Buying Moment-By-Moment Geolocation Cellphone Data To Track People
> The Department of Homeland Security also argues that using the information is perfectly legal and that the agency does not need a warrant to purchase it, according to a memo obtained exclusively by BuzzFeed News.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/hamedaleaziz/ice-dhs-ce...
> Intelligence Analysts Use U.S. Smartphone Location Data Without Warrants, Memo Says
> The disclosure comes amid growing legislative scrutiny of how the government uses commercially available location records.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/22/us/politics/dia-surveilla...
For example, https://www.apple.com/legal/transparency/ Germany is at 11+k while the UK which is of similar size is at 2+k
As I said, the US can stop you from making such disclosures and they do, which we know because some such embargoes have ended in individual cases. We have no idea how many are still in place.
Quite simply saying "We have no idea how many are still in place" actually, we have an idea. That idea is not many. It's simply FUD to talk about the US' ability to stop disclosures when talking about who is making the most requests. Especially when the US is still pretty near the top for countries making requests.
You can believe that if you want, but I'm not remotely convinced. We consistently find that the US spies and abuses its power more than anyone imagines. By induction, unless anything profound changes, I'll bet on that trend continuing.
Spies, not law enforcement. Spies spy. It's kinda in their job description.
For example you can deny the Holocaust among a small circle of friends, and that would not be "public".
And it's extremely hard to get anything of the sort prosecuted on the internet. See "tatütata.fail".
EDIT: The comment below phrases it even better.
A quick glance at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_Holocaust_denial suggests that you may have made up the public advocacy requirement:
> (3) Whosoever publicly or in a meeting approves of, denies or downplays an act committed under the rule of National Socialism of the kind indicated in section 6 (1) of the Code of International Criminal Law, in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding five years or a fine.[36][37]
Of course the distinction you are trying to draw smacks of sophistry to begin with. From what I can tell, you can be anti-islamic in your own four walls and even discuss your secular ideals with your friends in Pakistan, beacon of free speech, as well[1].
[1] As long as you don't defile the name of a prophet. That seems to carry a mandatory death sentence (plus fine, to really rub it in), even if it occurs within your own walls.
I wonder why so many free-speech advocates are hell-bent on enabling fascists to spread their propaganda. They are certainly not the first but not the last group they will drag to their camps or shoot.
To compare this kind of law to fundamentalist religious law is a special kind of ignorant.
Do you also wonder why so many cryptography advocates are hell-bent on enabling not just fascists but also pedophiles and terrorists to plan and commit their crimes or are your difficulties of comprehension more selective?
> To compare this kind of law to fundamentalist religious law is a special kind of ignorant.
Pakistan (unlike, say, Saudi Arabia) has constitutionally enshrined freedom of expression. Can you point to some fundamental difference that makes the restrictions Pakistan places on this right incomparable to those Germany places on it?
Cursing someone or insulting someone online (calling an idiot) you can end up in jail for 2 years.
I am not supporting that kind of law or anything as I have no skin in the game :).
You’re right; in Germany, insult is illegal. I’m reading about it, and articles say that the majority of minor insults are not reported, and that generally insult claims are dismissed (for example https://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-germany-insult-la...) Nazism and Holocaust denial are also illegal, and for pretty good reasons. Since the OP’s comment didn’t mention insulting people, but simply having opinions and discussing them, perhaps this is what they’re referring to? That might be the only subject that is taboo without qualification, the rest of them (such as blasphemy) appear to hinge on whether it could affect the safety of people?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_Federal_Repu...
The US has similar restrictions, most of them for similar reasons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
Watching Bill Maher first time was a eye opener for me on free speech. I couldn't imagine anyone doing it in my own country.
Probably OP is referring to Nazi stuff. But people do get fined for showing birdie at protests. Even though most are dismissed the process of going through the system is the punishment if you have no legal insurance.
All in all, I agree Germany is not a restrictive society and has honours tenets of free speech. But i won't compare it to USA. Which is light years ahead.
In Germany, there is Meinungfreiheit, which is freedom of opinion. This freedom cannot override others rights tho. So your right to an opinion may not infringe on someone else. For example, you can't insult others in a way that dehumanes them. However, you can insult people just not in a way that dehumanes them. A German court found an employer couldn't fire an employee just because they called them an autistic asshole in a text message. The employee was entitled to his opinion that the employer was an autistic asshole. It did not dehuman the employer because it was done privately and did not interfer with the operation of the business. So in Germany, private companies are not allowed to breach your rights, unlike in the US where it only applies to the goverment.