In a quiet German town, a 64-year-old woman received a letter that would upend her life: a €1,800 fine for clicking "thumbs up" three times on a tweet. Her crime? Allegedly endorsing a vigilante killing and mocking a migrant's religion, as charged under Section 140 of Germany's Criminal Code. This chilling case, detailed in eugyppius: a plague chronicle, exposes a growing trend of speech crime prosecutions that stifle public discourse and clash with the core tenets of classical liberalism. As Germany grapples with migration-related disorder, the state's heavy-handed use of laws like Section 140 to silence dissent reveals a troubling shift toward control over liberty, undermining the very freedoms that define a democratic society.

Last autumn, the Kassel prosecutor's office issued a Strafbefehl, a penalty order bypassing a full trial, to a woman for liking a tweet posted by user "Free-Web" on October 26, 2024. The tweet described a 15-year-old Swedish girl and her accomplices killing an alleged rapist in an act of vigilante justice, adding a mocking remark … By clicking "thumbs up," the woman was accused of publicly condoning an intentional killing and deriding the victim, presumed to be a migrant, in a way that implied religious mockery, despite no evidence the victim was Muslim.

The Strafbefehl's bureaucratic prose, preserved in eugyppius's translation, reveals the absurdity of the charge: a few emojis are spun into a narrative of criminal intent and prejudice. This summary procedure, designed to save judicial resources, allows prosecutors to issue fines with minimal scrutiny, leaving the accused to either pay or face a costly trial.

The prosecution unfolds against a backdrop of Germany's struggle with migration-related disorder. Eugyppius recounts a pub brawl in rural Thüringen, where two migrants' public fight consumed the resources of police, paramedics, and bystanders, illustrating the strain on public services. Such incidents, from stabbings to petty crime, overwhelm Germany's "flabby late-liberal state," which lacks the capacity to address them effectively. Yet, instead of tackling this chaos, the state targets its own citizens' speech, as seen in the woman's fine.

X users echo this frustration, highlighting a perceived double standard. One post laments, "Liking a tweet gets you fined, but migrants fighting in the streets barely get a slap. Germany's priorities are upside down." Another argues, "Speech laws are a tool to silence Germans while migrant crime overwhelms the system." The state's focus on legible, law-abiding citizens, those with fixed addresses and reputations to lose, contrasts sharply with its leniency toward less traceable migrant populations, a dynamic eugyppius calls "anarcho-tyranny."

This selective enforcement is starkly illustrated by the case of Dahabflex, a Leftist Kurdish rapper who calls for "burning fascists" in viral videos alongside a Bundestag representative. Unlike the woman, Dahabflex faces no prosecution, despite his explicit incitement reaching a far wider audience. X users note this disparity, with one stating, "Say 'burn fascists,' you're fine; like a tweet about migrant crime, you're fined. It's not justice, it's politics."

Classical liberalism, rooted in the works of John Stuart Mill and John Locke, champions individual liberty, equal justice, and free speech as pillars of a free society. Germany's speech crime laws, as applied in this case, violate these principles in several profound ways:

Mill's On Liberty argues that speech should be free unless it directly incites imminent harm. Section 140's prohibition on "public approval of criminal acts" is so vague that liking a tweet can be construed as criminal endorsement. The prosecution's speculative claim of religious mockery, without evidence, punishes perceived intent, not action. Locke's emphasis on clear, impartial laws is undermined by this subjective overreach, which leaves citizens vulnerable to arbitrary penalties.

Free speech, per Mill, fosters truth through open debate and protects minority views. The Strafbefehl system, with its low-scrutiny fines, creates a chilling effect, deterring citizens from engaging in discourse on contentious issues like migration. X users lament, "You can't even like a post without worrying about a fine. Free speech is dead in Germany." The state's apparent goal, as eugyppius suggests, is to "teach people to shut up," stifling dissent rather than addressing public concerns.

Classical liberalism demands equal treatment under the law. The contrast between the woman's fine and Dahabflex's impunity reveals a double standard, where speech critical of migration is punished while Leftist incitement is tolerated. This violates Locke's principle of impartial justice, eroding public trust.

Mill's harm principle limits speech restrictions to direct, tangible harm. Equating three emojis with condoning murder blurs the line between speech and action, resembling thought-policing. The Strafbefehl's narrative of intent, constructed from minimal evidence, punishes beliefs, not deeds, contradicting liberal autonomy.

Free speech underpins democratic deliberation, allowing robust debate on public issues. Germany's migration challenges demand open discussion, yet speech laws suppress it. Eugyppius argues the state targets "public outcry" over disorder, not the disorder itself.

The woman's case is a symptom of a broader shift toward what eugyppius terms "anarcho-tyranny": tolerating serious diverse disorder while aggressively policing minor white dissent. By targeting legible citizens, the state avoids confronting migration's challenges, which it cannot solve due to limited enforcement capacity and political constraints.

The historical roots of this crisis, as eugyppius notes, are murky, perhaps a mix of naive humanitarianism and failed border security. The state's early myths about migration's benefits, like importing "Syrian doctors," have collapsed, leaving a "slow-motion catastrophe." Speech crime laws now serve to manage the fallout by silencing critics, not solving problems.

Germany's prosecution of a woman for three emojis is a stark warning: speech crime laws like Section 140 threaten the soul of classical liberalism. By prioritising control over dissent, the state sacrifices free expression, equal justice, and democratic discourse. As X users and eugyppius highlight, this selective crackdown fuels resentment and undermines trust in liberal institutions. To restore liberty, Germany must narrow its speech laws, ensure impartial enforcement, and confront migration's challenges head-on. Until then, every Strafbefehl risks pushing the nation further from its liberal roots.

https://www.eugyppius.com/p/for-the-offence-of-tweeting-three