The law is this one: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stg...

No, quoting an example of Volksverhetzung is not illegal, if you're not actually attempting to incite hatred.

No, only if it's a danger to "public peace", and that is actually taken pretty seriously. Citing it as an example is no problem at all, you can even say something like that in first person if it is satire or provocative art. Unless you make it clear that you actually want people to seriously think that jews/muslims are subhuman and should be killed, chances are very slim that you would be convicted for that.

> you can even say something like that in first person if it is satire or provocative art

I can give you a counter-example (although in France where we have similar laws). Patrick Sebastien, who is a well-known French humorist has been convicted for exactly that (he impersonated Jean-Marie Le Pen, far right politician, in a satire song "casser du noir").

Sorry but I can only find a reference to a French article http://www.liberation.fr/medias/1996/03/13/patrick-sebastien...

The judges concluded that this was indeed an incitation to racial hatred, which is illegal in France.

French and German law are similar but not equal and this falls clearly in to the allowed territory in Germany.

The problem with the law is that it leaves the decision to whatever website's moderators.

GP was talking about the old, established laws, which were enough to sanction the worst cases of hate speech and which were surprisingly safe from overreach and unintended consequences. Those old ones would rather leave a case unforced than throw out the baby with the bathwater.

What you seem to be taking about is the new one, which breaks many things in the hopeless attempt to maximise enforcement of the original laws. This is a recurring theme in lawmaking: everything has a certain maximum level of reasonable enforceability, and when laws are written to increase enforcement beyond that limit they universally turn out bad.