The targets of the 234,341 criminal insult investigations conducted by German police last year[1] might argue otherwise. A few thousand of those were elementary school kids. Sixteen were preschoolers.
> courts are very well capable of recognizing the importance of free speech even for tasteless and hateful speech
Bless your heart. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that your personal experience is untainted by exposure to actual courts. Prosecutors in the United States are not exactly known for rigorous exercise of discretion, and defending yourself in court can be ruinously expensive even if you prevail.
---
[1] https://www.bka.de/DE/AktuelleInformationen/StatistikenLageb...
You do not need to convict or even formally charge someone in order to have chilling effect on speech; when the police investigate you for a crime, and the mere possibility of being charged and convicted hangs over your head, you will think twice about what you say.
And while I know little about German jurisprudence, I do know that prosecutors in this country do not need to attain a conviction in order to destroy someone's life. Once a prosecutor claims you are guilty, plenty of people will believe it no matter the outcome, and that's on top of depleting your life savings on legal representation. I urge everyone to keep this in mind when contemplating how European-style hate speech laws (or any proposed laws) would play out in the United States.
The stats I linked above suggest a clearance rate of 89% for criminal insult investigations. While that number dwarfs the 56% average clearance rate for criminal investigations across Germany, it is unclear to me whether those figures describe how many investigations led to convictions, indictments, a suspect being formally charged, or merely the positive identification of a suspect. I believe the term generally refers to the proportion of investigations that lead to a suspect being formally charged, but I wasn't certain, so I left that figure out.
Feel free to dig deeper.
Going by the most common definition of 'clearance rate', around 208k of those 234k investigations led, at minimum, to someone being formally charged with a crime. Frankly, that in itself is horrifying.
Given the total number of people in Germany and the size of the fringe this number is not at all horrifying but in fact in line with expectations. It is on the rise but this is a reflection of the fact that in Western Europe the number of ultra-right wing supporters is on the rise.
Very true. Well, except maybe for that one time when Germany became an open-air rape camp under the noses of police who did nothing for fear of being accused of racism. That kind of sucked.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Year%27s_Eve_sexual_assaul...
And, oh yeah, there was that time they threw a lawyer in jail for defending a Holocaust denier.
http://www.dw.com/en/german-neo-nazi-lawyer-sentenced-for-de...
But otherwise, sure, unqualified success. Great example.
That's not an honest reading of the article you linked. From the article, "[the lawyer] also signed a motion during Zündel's trial with "Heil Hitler" and shouted that the lay judges deserved the death penalty for "offering succour to the enemy" -- leading the court to dismiss her." She was a neo-Nazi herself.
We'll just make a list of all the arguments that are okay to advance in court, so then lawyers know which ones are forbidden.
That seems like a good concept with no far-reaching implications.
The action doesn't need embellishment from me.
"A man was arrested for walking." and "A man was arrested for walking and aiming a rifle at a woman." are clearly different actions.
A lawyer went to prison, for illegal statements she made, in court, in defense of her client. These illegal statements that would be illegal even outside the context of being a federal court lawyer.
I can't understand this fetish of generalizing to the point of total vagueness. Case-by-case analysis is just as important now as ever.
Oh it was ILLEGAL. Why didn't you say so? That makes it totally palatable that a lawyer might be imprisoned for doing his job, and doesn't AT ALL impeach the entire concept of a "trial."
> would be illegal even outside the context of being a federal court lawyer.
You have it backwards, friend. The inside of a courtroom needs MORE protections for speech, not fewer, than the outside. Laws like libel simply don't apply there (disclaimer: in the US. Can't speak for how they do it in failed states like Germany), and for very good reason.
If my lawyer yelled "Heil Hitler" and claimed the judge in my case should be murdered, while ostensibly defending me, I'd want them at the very least disbarred and wouldn't mind a bit of jail time.
BTW, I highly doubt a judge exhibiting this behavior in the USA would keep their law license, and they'd probably end up slapped with a contempt charge as well.
> The inside of a courtroom needs MORE protections for speech, not fewer
Perhaps for the defendant. But actually, in every country -- including the USA -- lawyers have extremely strong and often vague constraints on their speech.
And even then, what you're saying just isn't true, even in the USA. There are far more constraints on your speech during a trial than in the public square. Judges in the USA have extremely wide latitude in determining what can and cannot be said, how those things should be said, etc. Those are constraints that judges can enforce in their courtroom but cannot enforce in the public square.
Also, FWIW, knowingly committing libel during a trial is probably a bad idea. Even in the USA.
> disclaimer: in the US. Can't speak for how they do it in failed states like Germany
Well, if you consider Germany a failed state then I'm not really sure what to say. They have their problems, but then so does the USA. No place is perfect.
E.g., using your metric, the USA has THREE TIMES more rape than Germany. So if you put your identity politics aside for a second and look at the data, you come to a far different conclusion.
Also, IMO German citizens have a lot more practically useful freedoms than US citizens, even speech-related freedoms. "Don't be a Nazi" is something the Germans are pretty serious about, but they're a lot more lax about a lot of other speech that is de facto prohibited in many parts of the US. Eg, I seriously doubt Damore would've lost his job in Germany. And the Germans I talk to claim it'd be unambiguously illegal. And cultural self-censorship matters as well -- I'm much more comfortable discussing Christianity in Bavaria than in Alabama.
Germany draws their lines differently from the USA, but we're talking more about delineations at the fuzzy edges than actual differences in kind.
So again, if Germany is a failed state, I'm not really sure what a non-failed state looks like. At this point it's kind of hard for me to take you seriously.
Except that it is.
https://www.casamo.com/can-you-sue-for-defamation-during-tri...
>> what you're saying just isn't true. There are far more constraints on your speech during a trial than in the public square.
Which, OBVIOUSLY, is responding to:
> The inside of a courtroom needs MORE protections for speech, not fewer, than the outside.
and NOT responding to:
> Laws like libel simply don't apply there
The object-level claim is that even with exceptions like that one you link to, speech is MORE LIMITED in court rooms than in the public square everywhere -- including the USA.
And yes, yelling that a judge should be murdered in open court would land a US lawyer in jail.
You're nit-picking (and what's more, nit-picking over a willful misinterpretation of the argument I'm making), not responding to the substantive object-level claim.
While neither is much like a failed state, the US right now is a lot closer than Germany (and more clearly heading in the direction of getting closer yet.)
The second case is not a slippery slope because it does precisely what's codified in German law, nothing more and nothing less. The lawyer herself denied the holocaust and that's punishable in Germany. So the law was correctly applied. That has absolutely nothing to do with the slippery slope discussion.
80 cops "failed to notice" over 1000 violent crimes taking place in a space about the size of a football field, over the course of several hours.
My "speculation" is, by far, the very kindest interpretation.
> So the law was correctly applied.
Let's hope so. Defending her is a crime so we'll never really know.
Fair trials without all that pesky social change! What could possibly go wrong?
What an awful example and has nothing, what so ever to do with the laws against being a Nazi. Do you honestly believe the US has never avoided reporting something for fear of being labeled? Really?
The other example you gave was covered by others in the thread. Spoiler: it's a lie.
You are very poorly informed. The laws against "being a Nazi" are generic "no bad speech" laws. Nazism is just their most well-known application. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksverhetzung
> Spoiler: it's a lie.
A lawyer went to prison, for statements she made, in court, in defense of her client. That's not supposed to happen. It's not a feature.
If you have a US military base in your country you are objectively not a sovereign nation.
Slippery slope arguments are only valid if you believe that your jurisdiction doesn't have proper rule of law. Otherwise experience, at least in European countries, showed that courts are very well capable of recognizing the importance of free speech even for tasteless and hateful speech.