Let's put aside the irony of using Germany as an example, somewhere that had hate speech laws that didn't prevent National Socialism at all, and rampant anti-semitism that was left unchallenged because of blasphemy laws, and which now has to limit freedom of speech in fear of Nazism rising again. Notice how nothing remotely similar has ever taken hold in the US even though they allow Nazis to parade and speak freely. A culture of negative liberty and free speech is a more effective safeguard. Germany even had lese-majeste laws up until recently, I wouldn't pick it as my example.

> The disrespect is meant in terms of a reasonable discussion.

Which begs the question. Again we are led back to the question of what is (un)reasonable? Something you repeatedly fail to define, beyond persistent conflation with violence. I'm yet to see the necessary link between unreasonableness and harm. I think you're being unreasonable and likely you feel likewise - where's the actual harm?

> Blasphemy usually lies in the realm of religion, which is in the realm of opinion, unless you don't believe in freedom in religion.

“the realm of religion” is a curious phrase - do religious people not speak? I wonder if you're making such a nebulous distinction because you'd rather not have to ban several religious books (and hence religions. Hooray for freedom of religion) because they're quite clearly more hateful and an incitement in theory and in practice than nearly everything ever written on Twitter and Facebook that you would hold "unreasonable".

I'd allow them their freedom to speak, and I would allow people to speak against them. Freedom of religion (and from religion) is predicated on freedom of conscience, which is only fulfilled by having freedom of speech.

> Satire is rarely calling for violence last I checked and most reputable satirists I know check their facts before the show to make sure they don't get things wrong.

Forgive me, but this is utter nonsense. Why would satarists need to check facts? Is it because ssatarists in Germany are liable to be put in danger and legal hazard?[1]

> Plenty of people like to dress up violent speech as satire but it rarely works well when they're not punching up.

The world is not a black and white place filled with victims and oppressors. You might note how all oppressors are against freedom of speech.

> As you so beautifully stated above, free speech isn't a synonym for the US paper scrolls. In germany, violent speech is far outside the realm of protected speech. If you threaten to punch someone in germany, the courts can put you in jail for up to 30 days, depending on situation, history and such, usually it's a fine or 1-2 weeks probation/public work.

It's good to hear that you have an assault law. Are less or more people attacked in German for expressing a view than in the US? By all accounts Germany still has rampant anti-semitism[2] and regular attacks on citizens for their speech that are incited by hateful speech. German law would restrict criticism of those incitements because it's “the realm of religion” and "hateful" to do so, no doubt.

> >This is partly true, but it is no doubt true that the law - explicit as it is - states the opposite. Again, who was claiming that the system was perfect?

> If it's not actionable then it doesn't matter what the law says since it's not enforcced.

I'll have to send you to court for telling lies ;-) You can search for "us defamation win" and see a whole host of times courts decided before either side ran out of money. Usually, running out of money leads to a settlement if the plaintiff is not the underdog, which makes the settlement by the SPLC of Maajid Nawaz's case[3] perplexing… if we assume your statement to be true.

> There have been multiple instances of this happening over the years, most famously KeemStar, if I recall the name correctly, had a private stream for dedicated followers where he would repeatedly wish for someone to be SWATted, which can be a death sentence in the US.

Are you arguing that private individuals do or don't enact censorship? Hard to tell, you seem to have started out on one side and are now on the other.

> The german constitution may not know free speech, but it knows freedom of opinion, which is a tighter subset. Censorship in germany is still defined as being done by the government.

Censorship in German law. It's quite possible for censorship to be possible and not covered by law. If the law changes tomorrow will your argument change too? (or again)

> In colloquial language you may refer to some actions that SMC do as censorship but it is hardly correct. What SMC are doing is enabling or surpressing people's ability to share their speech.

In English that is known as censorship, since at least the publication of On Liberty, but it's also a good example of German paternalism and application of positive liberty, the form of "liberty" that always leads to bad things.

> > Strangely, it's only the proponents of censorship that claim it will lead to utopia.

> Germany has clauses that make you criminally accountable for lies you tell. It's called "Volksverhetzung"
…
> and it has worked well in the past to root out fascist groups and bring them to justice before they do anything to actually harm people.

Pre-crime as a category is tyrannical. Those who cannot remember - or understand - the past are condemned to repeat it.

[1] https://m.dw.com/en/german-satirist-jan-b%C3%B6hmermann-sues...

[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/21/magazine/anti-semitism-ge...

[3] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/06/maajid-...