Oh look at what is happening to this antiquated law: http://www.dw.com/en/berlin-abolishing-slander-law-on-insult...

Indeed, I didn't claim otherwise. The point is that the US government wouldn't have prosecuted him for insulting a foreign leader.

Yes but pointing the finger at this is quite loaded in the current context. Much less would it be to denounce laws as desuete as this French law forbidding women to wear trousers: http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/02/04/it-is-now-legal-for-wome... Of course the law itself was so antiquated that noone in their right mind would follow it.

> - German comedian writes an insulting, profane poem about Erdogan; is prosecuted (at Turkey's behest) for insulting a foreign leader [1]

Wrong? Böhmermann was sued, and the court said "lolwat, Böhmermann is covered by the right to free speech".

Article 5, GG: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/englisch_gg.ht...

> (1) Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing and pictures, and to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts and films shall be guaranteed. There shall be no censorship.

>Böhmermann was sued, and the court said "lolwat, Böhmermann is covered by the right to free speech".

Please note that I said prosecuted, not convicted, and I said prosecuted for insulting a foreign leader, not for speech. No such law against insulting a foreign leader exists in the US (and now as a result of this provocation it no longer does in Germany).

Eh, yes, there exist such laws in the US, too.

In this case, it’d have been prosecuted as libel/slander/defamation (as only untrue statements designed to hurt the reputation of a foreign leader can be prosecuted in Germany anyway).

You’d have the same case in the US.

Sure Erdogan could have sued Böhmermann for defamation in the US, and it wouldn't have been successful just as that aspect of the case against Böhmermann in Germany was without merit. The law against insulting a foreign leader goes (well, went) beyond that. I don't think it's fair to call that the same.

It's the US view of absolute free speech which is borderline idiotic.

Absolute free speech can have real consequences, here's a sad example from the Rwandan Genocide (copied from Wikipedia):

> The Power groups also believed that the national radio station, Radio Rwanda, had become too liberal and supportive of the opposition; they founded a new radio station, Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines (RTLMC), which broadcast racist propaganda, obscene jokes and music, becoming very popular throughout the country.[89] One study finds that approximately 10% of the overall violence during the Rwandan genocide can be attributed to this new radio station.

>It's the US view of absolute free speech which is borderline idiotic.

The US doesn't have absolute free speech.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_Unite...