Earlier quoted context omitted.
Freedom of expression is meaningless unless you have the social/political power to back that expression up. If Joe Blow tweets "kill the kikes", nobody cares. If someone with millions of devout followers says the same, there will eventually be blood. Or in your case, if a person with influence tells their fan club to harass someone, the victim may suffer actual mental health issues when enough of them act on it.
I simply disagree that the speaking is a good place to insert the pre-emptive legal monkey-wrench. It's paranoid. The idea that you can keep ideological genies in their bottles by zipping people's lips is superstitious, like something a schoolchild would believe. It's obvious Germany is overcompensating here out of national shame. The whole idea seems to be: murder and genocide are so bad, that any legislation that e…
I guess I can see why Americans would object to it: political hate speech is weaponised speech and Americans are ridiculously obsessed with being allowed to own weapons. It's that absurd idea that when the time comes and the others have infiltrated the government, the common man will take to arms and overthrow it (because presumably the military will defect and not just kill everyone).