Do you know someone who hates technology

: Comment: Is there a right to hate?

Freedom of expression in Germany is the topic of this summer. The excitement is swelling in the net. The supposed contrast between German identity and immigration creates the need to dump aggression on everything and everyone. To be able to publicly hate, as if there was no tomorrow, to be able to say anything, just anything.

That, one reads these days, means freedom. This does not mean political controversies about refugee policy, which are fierce. Even when things get right down to it, the opponents don't necessarily have to smear hatred on their faces.

But if it does happen, according to the will, especially new right groups, verbal hatred should not be named for what it is. Anyone who points out that threats, insults, defamation or sedition remain criminal offenses, despite the high constitutional value of freedom of expression, can expect a lot of virtual nagging. Mental censorship would be that there is a natural right to be allowed to hate someone. That is a human emotion like love, compassion, sadness or joy.

Away with the conscience

That's true. There is such a natural right. Love and hate, scent or disgust, these things are sometimes only moments apart. However, the current law protects people from the consequences of such a natural right. You can't just kill someone just because you hate them. One must neither threaten nor insult or defame him with death. And certainly not in public. This is the beneficial result of a long process of civilization. As if this had not existed, a climate that goes beyond the legal arises that is far more dangerous than a race between wild pigs that are driven through the village. On the Internet, hate speech should be declared unchallenged as a common law, even a natural law of the love of freedom.

But what does that mean in the political landscape when common sense counts less than free-range pigs? That is the theme of the “identitarians” who have just unrolled their slogans at the Brandenburg Gate.

To give priority to identity over reason in society means to leave democracy to the sow loose in the village. Through debates such as the historians' dispute, a German self-image has developed bit by bit, which over time has learned to renounce agitation and hatred. Especially when it comes to minorities. The New Right wants to break this post-war consensus. She wants to finally, finally - after much too long penance for the Holocaust - be able to tell the "truth" again. Without coercion and censorship. And regardless of anyone. Away with conscience, decency, reason?

Reacting, debating, arguing - all without offense, racism and sedition - is important. In the end it will be about democracy itself. Because only they can protect minorities from the majority. And everyone is the minority in something.

So beware of free-range sows. Once released, they will overrun anyone who stands in their way.