>On Thursday, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) upheld her 2011 conviction for “disparagement of religious precepts,” a crime in Austria. The facts of what E.S. did are not in dispute. She held “seminars” in which she presented her view that Muhammad was indeed a child molester. Dominant Islamic traditions hold that Muhammad’s third wife, Aisha, was 6 at the time of their marriage and 9 at its consummation. Muhammad was in his early 50s. The Austrian woman repeated these claims, and the Austrian court ruled that she had to pay 480 euros or spend 60 days in the slammer. The ECHR ruled that Austria had not violated her rights.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/its-not-fr...
> The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
how do you figure that? the freedom of opinion is explicitly enshrined in the german constitution for example. there are limitations, but these are very specific and not arbitrary.
gemany is in fact one of the countries the provides the most protection for your opinion world wide, as long as that opinion is not based on obvious falsehoods (like holocaust denial), or stirs up hatred against a group of people. you can however criticize others and at this point germany provides even more protection than the US.
> Last year, Andy Grote, a city senator responsible for public safety and the police in Hamburg, broke the local social distancing rules — which he was in charge of enforcing — by hosting a small election party in a downtown bar.
> After Mr. Grote later made remarks admonishing others for hosting parties during the pandemic, a Twitter user wrote: “Du bist so 1 Pimmel” (“You are such a penis”).
> Three months later, six police officers raided the house of the man who had posted the insult, looking for his electronic devices. The incident caused an uproar.
...
> In response to a message by [politician] Mr. Jurca criticizing Muslims, Mr. Mai posted a link to a picture of the mural [saying “Du bist so 1 Pimmel”].
> Several weeks later, four police officers pounded on Mr. Mai’s door at 6 a.m. with a warrant to confiscate his electronics. Mr. Jurca had filed a police report claiming the link to the photo was an insult.
in germany that is covered under insult against the honor and dignity of an individual. i don't know about this case, but this is generally only prosecuted when the insulted asks for it, and in most cases is a civil matter. that the incident caused an uproar shows that the response this case is an example of overreach, but overreach happens everywhere, and is an issue in itself. he question here is, is the risk for overreach more dangerous than removing the law/protection. this is certainly debatable.
https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20230329-french-woman-...
It is only if your words are likely to promptly cause someone to commit violence that you can be prosecuted for it.
That's just not true. Germany has banned slogans in favour of Palestinian freedom.
What's allowed is government-sanctioned gathering, which is the opposite of freedom of speech.
do you have any references?
and what do you mean by "government-sanctioned"? reality is that any kind of large public demonstration requires registration and is subject to permission. the question is whether permission is granted to all groups equally, or whether certain groups are getting limited. if that is what you mean then we would have to look at actual statistics. demonstrations in favor of palestina certainly did happen.
Staatsräson: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Germany#Restrict...
> and what do you mean by "government-sanctioned"? reality is that any kind of large public demonstration requires registration and is subject to permission.
In Germany. That's not true in the majority of the democratic world and is not what any reasonable person would call freedom of expression. Nothing that requires permission is a right and civil rights don't require permission.
> demonstrations in favor of palestina certainly did happen.
And the protestors have faced consequences both immediate and in long-tail harassment from the German State.
for the rest, i can't comment on your claims without knowing more details about them
just because something was possible to happen during covid does not mean that it is possible to happen otherwise. comparably what is happening in the US now is also exceptional and we have yet to see if that becomes the new normal.
btw, it turns out i was wrong, you don't even need permission, you just need to announce the demonstration. there can be restrictions, and in specific circumstances a demonstration can be disallowed. but by default all you need to do is make an announcement towards the appropriate institutions.
https://www.nd-aktuell.de/artikel/1191189.index-der-repressi...
https://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/berlin-demonstrationen-g...
the first is a left wing publication, but the second is quite conservative.
i have to admit that what they describe is much worse than i imagined. :-(
you are right it certainly looks a lot like suppression of legitimate protests and support of palestine being deliberately misinterpreted as antisemitism.
Open jew hate in Europe hasn't been this elevated since WWII.
Opposition to genocide or to Israel is not anti-Semitism.
Would what last few episodes of South Park be legal if they were made by Germans and targeted German politicians? Probably not?