By Katelyn Rafferty

As Americans, the right to free speech is ingrained in us from an early age. It is deeply rooted in our culture and beliefs about who we are as Americans and the broader western culture. Stories of police knocking at the door over something you said belong in a dystopian novel, not the morning newspaper. But in the country of Germany, free speech is under attack in the name of protecting people from unkind or rude words. 

Germany has a similar government to the U.S., modeled in part after our own created in the aftermath of World War II. They, too, have a constitution that guarantees them free speech. But for them, free speech is not defined as any speech. In February 2025, CBS’s “60 Minutes” published a story on Germany’s speech laws. They interviewed state prosecutor Dr. Matthäus Fink who had explained that in Germany “you have free speech as well, but it also has its limits.”

These limits included posting a cartoon defined by the German police as “racist” to social media. Posting or even reposting someone’s tweets deemed “malicious gossip, violent threats, and fake quotes” all violate Germany’s speech laws. There, “hate speech” criminals can face fines up to 3,750 euros, and the police can confiscate their devices (the laptop or cellphone that was used to post). Repeat offenders can even face jail time.

The rationale for these speech laws stem from a 2019 murder of a German politician who for years had received online hate for his “progressive immigration policy.” The German government linked his murder to the years of online hate he had received, believing that this was the driving force behind his murder. German officials decided to accelerate their “online hate task force” to prevent future killings.

There are many thousands of people who receive death threats and hateful comments online. Most, if not all, celebrities and public figures have had to deal with hurtful and hateful speech, but there are very few instances of people acting out this speech in violent ways. Objectively, we know it is wrong to be cruel or call people names. But just because something is unpleasant or even genuinely wrong, does that mean it should be illegal? 

The answer from the German government is a resounding yes when it comes to speech. Because it hurts people’s feelings, they reason that hurtful comments should be banned.

Legal has become synonymous with good. Before one makes a decision, they might check to make sure it is legal, but would they care to check if it was moral? This is in part due to the fact that the civil government has encroached on so many areas it was never intended that many people would not consider something that was legal could also be wrong and foolish. Since its founding, the American civil government has eagerly tried to step into many areas that should be left for communities, families, and individuals to do. From giant welfare programs replacing charities to enacting endless regulations in the name of personal safety, these types of laws not only step in to do the hard work that communities and individuals should do, but they also do the thinking for people too. After all, if it was dangerous or wrong, wouldn’t the government already have outlawed it? Germany is certainly taking this type of reasoning to an extreme when it comes to speech.

Founding Father and U.S. President John Adams famously wrote that “our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” In theory, a moral and religious society, to use Adams’s language, should be sufficient to police hateful and rude speech. This is certainly not a new idea. In every community, there are rules, often unspoken, that dictate how one should speak and act. Others are spoken rules taught to us as children by our parents. They tell us not to make negative comments about others’ appearance or not to complain about food at someone else’s house.

There will always be certain jokes that we know not to say, unkind words that we know to hold back. In short, hateful or rude speech is already “banned” in our communities. This rule is not enforced by fines or jail, but rather the opinions of our friends, neighbors, and community. In rare cases, we might be ostracized from the group if we go too far or are too rude. The unkind friend will not be invited to the events if they always have rude or hurtful speech. Perhaps they will be confronted on their speech by others, but often the subtle glances and nonverbal actions are enough to show us when we’ve crossed the line. The true definition of hate speech stems from Christianity and the morality of the Golden Rule to do to others as you would have them do to you. This is applied in different ways culturally, but the core principle is seen in most civilized societies. 

But what happens when people are no longer part of groups and communities? Or when most of their interaction takes place online? Many people, especially young people, are socializing less and spending more time online. As people tend to isolate more from their real communities, the strength of a moral and religious society tend to falter. The internet itself is its own culture and often lacks any universal code of principles or morals. The anonymous nature of the internet gives false courage for users to write hateful things they never would utter in real life. The temptation to be rude online might be stronger where the social pressures are less immediate, but a true moral person will still strive to govern their own speech with kindness and love towards others. 

As our local governments of community and individual morality fail, it’s not surprising that the civil government is more than eager to fill the vacuum. But their methods are harsh and wrong. People should be allowed to say hateful things online and in person without fear of the law, but they should want to refrain from doing so out of fear of God and their friends. 

Katelyn Rafferty is a freelance writer.