The far-left has become everything they claim they are against.

Ah, Democrats. Can’t live with 'em, don’t really want to.

Why... it's almost like every liberal is a hypocrite, or something.

Obviously, both of them are racist. I'm just mad because the latter kind gets a pass from the shill mainstream media.

Ever heard of Extremists or idiots? I am sure you've heard of them. One of them is even your president

First of all, I didn't say liberal I said the left. Secondly, remember, your leader is Angela Merkel, so let's not talk about idiots.

"First of all, I didn't say liberal I said the left"

Semantics

"Secondly your leader is Angela Merkel, so let's not talk about idiots."

First off thats not really an argument. Secondly, remember, your leader is Donald Trump, so let's not talk about idiots. Thirdly Jokes on you, I voted for Die Grünen (Merkels Party is CDU and the Coalition Partner SPD) Fourthly, Merkel's retiring stop whining

In the U.S. there is a difference between liberals and leftist.

You think President Trump is an idiot. That's your opinion and you are entitled to it. (Well maybe not in Germany since they don't have a free speech amendment).

Anyway, since the U.S. has a GDP growth rate of 3.2% and Germany has a GDP growth rate of 0.7%, I think our idiot is doing better than your idiot.

Maybe look into voting AFD next time. I hear they are quite popular.

"they don't have a free speech amendment"

"Art 5. (1) Jeder hat das Recht, seine Meinung in Wort, Schrift und Bild frei zu äußern und zu verbreiten und sich aus allgemein zugänglichen Quellen ungehindert zu unterrichten. Die Pressefreiheit und die Freiheit der Berichterstattung durch Rundfunk und Film werden gewährleistet. Eine Zensur findet nicht statt."

Because I am just that kinda ass, I am not gonna translate

"since the U.S. has a GDP growth rate of 3.2% and Germany has a GDP growth rate of 0.7%"

You do realise that Leadership has little to do with Economy? Still btw doesn't stop us being the biggest Economy in Europe. :)

"Maybe look into voting AFD next time. I hear they are quite popular."

I don't prefer parties who claim the Second World War is just birdshit when compared to a thausand years of successful German History. Or Parties that actively claim the Holocaust nor Man made Climate chnage exist. Sorry. I'd suggest a party for you, but then I realised your in a two party Democracy

Let's see, didn't the district court in Munich recently gave a German journalist, Michael Stürzenberger, a six-month suspended jail sentence for posting on his Facebook page a historical photo of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, shaking the hand of a senior Nazi official in Berlin in 1941. The photo was real and factual.

Doesn't the Strafgesetzbuch section 86a rather strictly prohibit the public display of "symbols of unconstitutional organizations"? Who decides what is an unconstitutional organization? Ah, the government, that's right.

Can't you be arrested for misgendering a person?
Are you not allowed to say the holocaust was a hoax?

Sorry, that is censorship.

"Michael Stürzenberger"

What you mean the guy who said that he preferd all Amerikaner to die? You gonna defend that guy?

"for posting on his Facebook"

Can't find it under the literal pile of Charges of Harrasment and Reports by our equivalent of the FBI. Dude is as Right as you can get without being a Nazis. I even found the AfD denouncing him. He is a knkwn islamophobe and he even, in a rally, held up a placard of Heinrich Himmler and th Caption "Islam is very close to our world view" Which a is unconstitutional as any Nazi symbols not for education are highly illegal and b is just being assholish. He has also been cited on multiple occasions for instagating fights with police officers. This guy you do not want to defend

"Doesn't the Strafgesetzbuch section 86a rather strictly prohibit the public display of "symbols of unconstitutional organizations"? "

Yes, and for your dumb ass that means Nazi emobilia.

"Who decides what is an unconstitutional organization"

A Special council did that before the Federal Republic was even a thing back in 1949

Unlike what you have in your mind, it is not decided on a case by case bases. These Unconstitutional organisations are also know as Far Right Nazi or Far left Socialist Organisations. But primarily Far Right Nazis. So no swastika, no Hitler, no Himmler no SS and /especially/ no Jew Hating rhetoric.

"Can't you be arrested for misgendering a person"

No. You cannot. Stop inventing things

"Are you not allowed to say the holocaust was a hoax"

Directly? No. Your not allowed. probably. But that stops no one and then you have people like Michael who question the numbers of Jews who died or the metjods or the places or the reasoning for it. So you see you can say whatever you damn well please. Even shit thats supposedly illegal, if you frame it right

"Sorry, that is censorship."

And suck my balls and call me a Russian. You ever heard of Hate Speech laws?

My point is you live under a state that has more censorship than I do.

Special Council or not, your government can decide what groups and opinions are allowed to be heard.

I agree, that Michael Stürzenberger is an evil person, just like I can't stand David Dukes here in the U.S. However, free speech should not be restricted just because we think that speech is evil or hateful.

There are no "Hate speech laws" in the U.S. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that there is no such thing as "Hate" and all speech is protected speech. The reason is, who gets to determine something is hate speech? You? Me? Obviously, we would not agree, so then who is the arbitrator of what is hate speech? Ah, the government, yeah that always makes sense.

I still think Angela Merkel is an idiot and has seriously damaged Germany and Europe.

I don't understand the reason for your last comment. However, I will decline the offer to suck your balls, but I will call you a Russian if that makes you happy.

"Special Council or not, your government can decide what groups and opinions are allowed to be heard"

Theoretically. Yes, but uts already been decided. The Law is not Vauge enough for the Government to exploit it, additionally its a subsection of a Constitutional amendment meaning that Art 5 has more power in court

". However, free speech should not be restricted just because we think that speech is evil or hateful"

True, but you see here in Germany Nazi Emobilia is illegal. Its just part of the culture. We banned it for obvious reasons. And we have the Volksverhetzung laws Here I hope it futs in one post:

(1) Whoever in a manner likely to disturb public peace, 1.

incites to hate, calls for acts of violence or arbitrary action against a national, racial, religious or ethnic group, against parts of the population or against an individual because of his or her affiliation with a group or part of the population; or

Second

attacking the human dignity of others by verbally abusing, vilifying or defaming a group, parts of the population or an individual for belonging to a group or to a part of the population mentioned above,

is punished with imprisonment of three months to five years.

(2) A sentence of up to three years imprisonment or a fine shall be imposed, who1.

circulate a publication (§ 11 (3)) or make it available to the public or offer, leave or make available to a person under the age of eighteen a font (§ 11 (3)), ie

incite hatred against a group referred to in paragraph 1 (1), against sections of the population or against an individual because of belonging to a group referred to in paragraph 1 (1) or to part of the population;

b)

calls for acts of violence or arbitrary measures against persons or majorities of persons referred to in subparagraph (a); or

c)

the human dignity of persons or majorities referred to in point (a) is attacked by being abused, maliciously scorned or slandered,

Second

makes available a content referred to in paragraphs 1 (a) to (c) by means of radio or telemedia to a person under the age of eighteen or to the public, or;

Third

produces, supplies, supplies, holds in stock, offers, solicits or undertakes to insert or export this document (paragraph 11 (3)) of the content referred to in (1) (a) to (c); use number 1 or number 2 or allow another person to use it.

.....

(3) A prisoner of imprisonment of up to five years or a fine shall be punished who publicly publicizes an act committed under the rule of National Socialism of the kind specified in Section 6 (1) of the Code of Criminal Law in a manner likely to disturb public peace or endorse, deny, or downplay in a gathering.

(4) A prisoner of imprisonment of up to three years or a fine shall be punished who, in public or in a meeting, disturbs public peace in a manner that offends the dignity of the victims by sanctioning, glorifying or justifying the National Socialist regime of violence and despotism.

(5) Paragraph 2 (1) and (3) shall also apply to a document (Article 11 (3)) of the content referred to in paragraphs 3 and 4. Paragraph 2 (2) also penalizes those who make available a content referred to in paragraphs 3 and 4 by means of radio or telemedia to a person under the age of eighteen or to the public.

(6) In the cases referred to in paragraph 2 numbers 1 and 2, also in connection with paragraph 5, the attempt is punishable.

(7) In the cases of paragraph 2, also in connection with paragraph 5, and in the cases of paragraphs 3 and 4, section 86 (3) shall apply mutatis mutandis.

"The reason is, who gets to determine something is hate speech"

Again, I find the law to be reasonable and I don't think this can be used to shut down oppositional Critique. No matter what you think, I can go out right now mock and critique the Government all I want and nithing is gonna happen. Well legally at least. Shocking as it may seem to you Hate Speech laws work if done correctly.

"I still think Angela Merkel is an idiot and has seriously damaged Germany and Europe"

I don't think so, but everyone is entitled to their opinion. But I have to admit if Merkel were to be a bit more Proactive. Twould be nice

"I don't understand the reason for your last comment. However, I will decline the offer to suck your balls, but I will call you a Russian if that makes you happy."

I had a "Disscusion" with another Rightist about Russian interference, now before you say anything, my talking point was that America should have punished Russia for its meddeling. And they di Meddle as Mueller said. Ibalso said half of my Problems with Trump would be gone had he done something, anything, to punish Russia and I compared his ignoring of said meddling as the Russians spitting on Hima while he sucks there cock and insults one of Americas most inportant allies if I do say so myself. Anyway, yeah....

"I find the law to be reasonable".

That is the problem. You accept that the government is allowed to tell you what you are allowed to say.

What if another party takes control and changes the law. Now the law says you can't expound any liberal ideology. Would you still think the law was reasonable?

The government should not be allowed to restrict what can be said or published. Only by allowing all speech, can the people decide which ideas are better. The best way to get rid of bad ideas is to let them be out in the open and show that they are bad. That is the beauty of the 1st. amendment.

BTW, in the U.S. there is a difference between a conservative and a rightist. I am not right-wing. Just like there is a difference between a liberal and a leftist.
It is like your CDU party and NPD party, both are on the right, but different.

Unfortunately, our two major parties, the Democrats and Republicans, do everything they can to depress the rise of other parties. This leads to a broad spectrum of ideologies being in both parties. So you end up with center-right people and far-right people identifying as Republican. Conversely, you have center-left and far-left identifying as Democrats.

"That is the problem. You accept that the government is allowed to tell you what you are allowed to say."

I accept what hat the government tells me what NOT to say. And as you can see for yourself the law itself is not that unreasonable

"What if another party takes control and changes the law"

Thats a Constitutional Amendment. Good luck trying. You need above 2/3 of Parliament, the Federal Council, The President (In a rare instance of him having power) and the Chancellor. I gurantee no signle party will have the votes neccesary. And with the current political Climate no one is going to and if you are in a coalition I can almost guarantee said Coalition partner being against it.

"The government should not be allowed to restrict what can be said or published"

I think the Law is very clear with what it calls hate speech and I struggle to find a reasonable way to use the Amendment to shut down Government opposition. Until such time as it is used to do so, the Amendment will continue to be a Pain in the ass for Radicals, as they struggle to get out their message of hate in such a way as to not make it Unconstitutional. And I am 100% fine with that. I support telling Nazis to shut the f**k up. Why don't you?

". Only by allowing all speech, can the people decide which ideas are better"

Thats good but I think we can agree calling Muslim or Jews Rabid Dog Nazis is bad?

"exist"

don't exist*