The test for what values we uphold should not always be what has proven to be a good outcome for ourselves or for society.
Your same argument could be used against many human rights. What about torture: can you give me a concrete example of how US torture was bad for society?
Extending your argument from society to individuals, we make the worst tragedies possible. It is an important lesson from the history of Germany itself, in the quote: 'When they came for them, I did not speak, because I was not them. When they came for me, there was no one left to speak for me."
There is value in upholding human rights on principle.
Once you eliminate free speech in cases where it is convenient, you no longer have a free speech principle.
In Germany the thought police has brought people to court for things such as Facebook groups for people who don't like refugees. Maybe that seems fair to you, but then again a comedian also faced prosecution for a poem about Erdogan. Now imagine prosecution for a poem belittling Trump. It's the possibility of that outcome that we want to stay as far away from as possible.
Besides, it seems difficult to believe a legitimate role of government is to protect you from words, and words alone.
Another example is democracy. Just because you support someone's right to vote for, and you know a few people will go vote for fascists, it does not mean you support fascism as a human right.
Once you eliminate speech just because you disagree with it, you begin the process of allowing the most powerful to determine that criteria for their own benefit.
I know you don't want to be insulted, or let other people be insulted, but it's a dangerous responisbility to give to government to make them arbiter of what speech is acceptable.
http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2016/07/man-jailed-for...
edit: more examples from some other European countries http://www.euronews.com/2016/04/15/beyond-a-joke-7-countries...
"We need more freedom of speech, not less. The US is miles ahead of us in this respect. Here in Europe, we're missing that fundamental value of "I disagree with what you say, but I will fight for your right to say it". Instead, it's more like "I disagree with what you say so I'm going to try to get you arrested for it"."
Therefore my example is germane and quite a clear example given your question.
Here are more examples (again Netherlands, Switzerland, Poland, Spain):
http://www.euronews.com/2016/04/15/beyond-a-joke-7-countries...
In the US, the offended person would have to sue the offender for libel or defamation. The State would not be bringing charges because this is not a criminal matter; it is a civil matter. Nor is it so obviously defamation or libel, as you suggest.
The lese majeste law is not a matter of the King suing the offender. It is a matter of the Dutch state pursuing criminal prosecution.
It is important to understand that this is, for now, a matter of a chilling effect. I don't claim that I would be put in jail or fined for my opinions, but I definitely do feel a risk of some authority possibly investigating me. And that is enough to make me not take part in the debate. And I do not see my positions being openly discussed in public, even though I know from private conversations that many, many people hold the same views. This is something that moderates on the other side seem not to understand or believe, because they do not face it.
This has lead to a number of poor outcomes for the societies in Europe. Most importantly there are possible approaches to solving the situation that have not been seriously explored and evaluated (e.g., Australia style migrant centres outside the EU). As a result the European response has been uncontrolled, inefficient and hugely expensive. I believe many more people in real need could have been helped, and many lives saved, by an approach that was not based on accepting unlimited numbers of migrants into Europe.
The second important problem is that it drives the disenfranchised moderates towards the extreme. If you feel like your voice is not heard in the debate, it becomes more likely that you will demonstrate with a protest vote for an extremist.
Personally I am absolutely against this law. Even if you accept the idea of hate speech laws, surely they should be enforced by the courts, not by Facebook?
There is no law in Germany preventing you from voicing your opinion against immigration. We're talking about legally enforced censorship not about media bias. Having said that, I do agree with many things you say, I just think they are not directly relevant to the discussion.
Could you please read my second paragraph. I'm aware the is no law against voicing my opinion on immigration (I'm not against immigration, I'm an immigrant myself). However, I am absolutely not going to publicly voice my opinions because I do not want to risk someone interpreting some part of my point out of context and investigating me for hate speech.
If I recall correctly, the Swastika is banned in Germany, even though it's a symbol with many meanings in many cultures. This means people can't express certain aspects of their cultures, visually, simply because the NSDAP chose to use the same logo. Context matters, you know.
Finally, I heard a law in Germany is about to get passed that is going to make large social networks program bots that automatically ban content based on whether it may contain hate speech or crime. Good satire will disappear from much of the German internet.
Exactly, and that's the reason why you can use the Swastika as much as you want in Germany when the context makes clear that you're not using it for political purposes. These silly strawmen arguments do not help the discussion.
This mostly agrees with the text of the law, which appears to include a provision translating to "... shall not be applicable if the means of propaganda or the act serves to further civil enlightenment, to avert unconstitutional aims, to promote art or science, research or teaching, reporting about current historical events or similar purposes."
Reporting on the law suggests that the purpose is much stronger than simply avoiding its political use, but also to "avert social habitation". In particular, it appears that its use in, say, a video game would in fact be illegal, as Ubisoft assumed with its 2014 release "South Park: The Stick of Truth".
You seem to be very convinced of this. Could you please list one or two concrete cases where you think free speech was too limited in Europe and where this limitation led to a poor outcome for society? I think this could make your argument much stronger.