Comment Re:Nipples and terrorism? (Score 1) 134
I didn't want to actually 'bash' anyone except those people oversimplifying the matter by putting Germany next to a socialist dictatorship because the limits of free speech are already codified by laws and at the same time falling for the illusion of unlimited free speech in the US just because the limits there aren't actual laws.
But in the end, the restrictions are more or less the same (With a few well known exceptions like the use of symbols of historical fascist groups), so we're talking about details here.
When I mentioned that this could lead to a situation where less rules could lead to a bit less freedom in the end may be partly bias partly gut feeling, but without a well defined framework, there is always the chance that some lawyer finds a way to convince a court why exactly your speech wasn't protected by free speech and you're to pay huge damages. This risk (Or some lawyer threatening with it - we're still talking about fringe cases...) might make people not use their right to speak freely.
On the other side, given definition of what is included by "free speech" and what not is simpler and eliminates surprising court rulings. It's easier for everyone to know how free speech works and claim that right because the limits define also what is inside the limit and therefore definitly protected.
For that to work, of course, the limiting laws themselves have to be insides the limits of a constitution that deserves the word "democratic". Without that limit, my line of reasoning may be used as an excuse for every dictator to kill fredom of speech.