Originally Posted by
John Doe 88
the thing is, the german justice system puts a lot more emphasis on making a ruling about the whole situation, every facette included, and obviously no two cases are allways exactly the same, which puts precedence a bit into the outfield, one has to add though that german law isn't above using precedence, and there are indeed things where our highest court said "you are not allowed to do xyz just because abc" or the other way around which does indeed gets used as argument to dismiss or hold lower court cases, though on also has to know that in germany you are free to take it to a higher court as long as a lower court ruled against you.
agreed on the nda aspect, was simply the first example that came to mind, just wanted to point out exactly what you wrote yourself, if Politician A doesn't want certain things to get out s/he hands out NDAs and that's that, freedom of speech be damned, and sorry if my last text sounded kinda pissy, gets hard to type as much, i just find it important to point out that this current case is absolutely no change or breach in any freedom of speech laws in germany, and neither does it have anything to do with slamming an old lady because she said something against refugees, all in all it was a court upholding a law which exists with the purpose to protect everyone, if this is a good law is a completly different debate, but it is german law and it is widely accepted here, and not just since 2015
edit:
but that would still mean that free speech is limited, doesn't it ? if german law said free speech was absolute, but our constitutional court said nope, no flag burning, would it then still be absolute ?