They are not alleging that the photos were taken against the parents' (or children's) will. It seems to imply that a person carries a perpetual license on their likeness.
Maybe that children are involved makes this case special (unclear here). Or maybe someone who liked a photo of themselves one day gets to demand it be taken down later. Imagine a couple dating put up a photo. They break up and a couple years later one is getting married and demands the other takes down that photo.
People are allowed to have opinions in opposition to that of the sitting government, including ones that sat well before we were even born.
Yes, but they need to justify them. Disregarding tradition goes both ways. You can't brush off the German conception of the law and then just go "well that's censorship bro", which is honestly 90% of the discourse on HN on these issues.
The notion of a 'concordance of legal values' is highly intuitive. There's a very strong case to be made that laws are not sacred, that they serve the public good, and thus ought to be balanced. It's the free speech absolutism that is purely an artefact of American culture, practised virtually nowhere else to this degree.
Absolute free speech is a flawed concept anyways and even America acknowledges that with the legal concept of hate speech.
There are other instances like swearing on TV.
The radio spectrum is regulated by the FCC. If you want to broadcast on it, you have to get a license and abide by the rules. The FCC has many rules about the content of radio communications including the frequency, the modulation, the maximum transmit power, and yes the content. For example: amateur radio & citizen's band communications can't be encrypted. But even when it comes to broadcast TV, some swearing is allowed. And you can swear as much as you want on cable or streaming services.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reno_v._American_Civil_Liberti...
In Europe we generally don't. In Germany we certainly don't.
We have a doctrine of "practical concordance" where all basic rights limit each other and have to be weighed such that all basic rights achieve maximal effect. In a way we're looking for a global maximum, not a local "free speech trumps personal rights" solution.
And on another note: I always find it rich when Americans complain about that. America specifically forged our constitution that way. Free speech was not very important post-war, when de-nazification called for banning books, closing all newspapers, licensing newspapers by publishers who were politically "right".
You got that right back then, I'm not complaining about that. But if you had wanted full American Free Speech in Germany, you could have implemented it with a stroke of a pen. Don't blame us now.