No, you're not allowed to publish gory video games or racist literature[1] in Germany, which is clearly prior restraint. It's not that the US has some crazy absolutist freedom of expression (it does not), it's that Germany simply lacks it.
You can't have "mostly" free expression. It's either abridged or it isn't. Germany censors harmless digital art that the government deems inappropriate for adults to be able to see. It's a classic slippery slope (modern Germans defending their government's censorship and lack of free expression will usually cite Hitler/racist stuff, but that's not all that's banned).
It doesn't really matter what the constitution says, if in practice you don't have those rights. It's sort of like how the 2A in the USA says that the people have the right to keep and bear arms, but I don't suggest attempting to exercise that right in Central Park, because you don't actually have it. Same goes for free expression in Germany.
> Germany is one of the strictest censors of violence among the world’s video game consumers. Due to its history and a cohesive national opinion, the legislature limits content severely, much more severely than the surrounding European nations. This results in international developers choosing not to market to Germany, creating censored titles specifically for the German market, or finding themselves on a list of banned titles illegal to buy or sell.
[1]: there's also no indication that racist publications were responsible for WW2 (versus, say, Hitler himself), making this censorship-for-censorship's sake. Many other countries do not prohibit racist literature and have not committed a holocaust. So, of course, they banned violent video games too, because those don't cause violence either.
Because you asked, even though it's now way off-topic for this thread (and I will not respond further):
Because the text of 2A does not indicate that the right is contingent upon participation in a militia (and indeed 10 USC 246[1] legally defines the US militia as all able-bodied male citizens of ages 17 to 44 inclusive, as well as all female citizens who are members of the National Guard, even if it did), as 2A actually specifies RKBA as a right of the people (not "people of the militia", just "people").
Heh, and where was this interpretation when the Black Panthers were arming themselves in California? Even the NRA supported gun control back then.
> In contrast to the NRA’s rigid opposition to gun control in today’s America, the organization fought alongside the government for stricter gun regulations in the 1960s.
From 1930s to 2008 it was read differently. The words also don't say the mentally ill with violent uncontrollable ideations can't have them, but we constitutionally allow the disallowing of that presumably both out of common sense and because forcing allowing that has nothing to do with a well regulated militia.
Your information on video games is about a decade out of date, there were no video games put on List A or B for the past 2 years at least, and I haven't checked further. The last high profile ban was Wolfenstein, and that was for it's use of the Swastika.
I encourage you to read up on the J.E. Hoover and J. McCarthy on how much the US First Amendment is worth. Or maybe try running a pro ISIS webserver in the US, see how quickly you have the FBI knocking on your door. Let's not even talk about DCMA takedowns etc..
The US ranks lower than Germany in the FH and RWB freedom of the press indices [1], which while not quite the same is highly related to freedom of speech.
The First Amendment is stronger than any equivalent rule in any other modern country that I'm aware of. The fact that it's been undermined repeatedly, both in the past and the present (due to the recent wave of authoritarianism that has been sweeping US politics, which can be seen clearly on HN itself), doesn't have any bearing on its relative ranking - so, it can suck (or just be a little suboptimal), but still be better than everything else.
Moreover, how is DMCA relevant? Copyrighted works are outside the bounds of free speech.
Wait, what? How does the fact that it's undermined not have an impact on how useful a US right is to me?
DMCA, and in general the US legal system are extremely relevant to me as a user. If I have a theoretical right to free speech, but in practice any big US media company could kill it then I'm much better off in another country where maybe the theoretical right is 10% less but I can actually practically enjoy that right.
Those rankings just encode the political outlook of a certain leftist NGO.
In the USA, Neonazi publications are allowed, while in Germany they are illegal. Therefore, the US has a freer press than Germany. Freedom House would disagree, and they are simply wrong.
FYI - not according to the US constitution. It applies to everyone on US soil, and is supposed to bind the federal gov’t in general in how it acts everywhere.
De facto and de jure of course being completely different things.
> FYI - not according to the US constitution. It applies to everyone on US soil, and is supposed to bind the federal gov’t in general in how it acts everywhere.
Sure but that ship sailed years ago. Their constitution is also supposed to guarantee a right to a fair trial but obviously the legions of drone victims didn't get one.
An appropriate German name is one that is first recognised as a proper name. It cannot be associated with evil (e.g. Satan, Lucifer) or deemed religiously insensitive (e.g. Christus or Jesus). A name cannot be a product, brand, surname or a place name. Finally, German names have to indicate the child’s gender and they are not allowed to cross (one exception is Maria, which can be used as a boy’s second name). Neutral names (e.g. Alex, Kim) must be followed by a second name that indicates the child’s gender.
If your definition of freedom of speech means being able to name your kid whatever you want then obviously the US first amendment is not working since most states have rules regarding naming too. For example: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/11/california-b...
California like several other states bans the use of diacritical marks on official documents. Last year, the state took up a bill that would have allowed diacritical marks, but it stalled out when a $10m price tag was attached
You're right that German naming rules are overbearing, but you'd have trouble naming a baby "X Æ A-Ⅻ" in a lot of places, including many US states, I believe.
Freedom of speech is article 5 of the German constitution.
What you mean is that it differs from the US version.