> For what? What right of yours have I violated by retransmitting publicly available information about you? Presumably this right of yours would also be infringed if I gossiped about you? I agree it’s not a polite thing to do, but rights only count when they protect contentious actions.

Information that you gained from observing me is not necessarily publicly available information. You can't camp in front of an abortion clinic and write down everyone who went in and publish that on the internet, at least not in Germany.

Generally, if there is not a legitimate public interest, you can not publish information that would direct identify me, like my name, in a newspaper.

> Free people don’t need to justify their actions.

Well if you answered that questions, we could have an actual discussion.

Currently everyone that responded to me here said a variation of "everyone should have the right to photograph strangers without their consent because everyone should have the right to photograph strangers without their consent" with a bit of fancy works.

Like yeah this might be true and self evident because of some axioms that you have but that I don't necessary share and that you don't make explicit so this looks completely pointless to me.

I genuinely don't even understand the passion for photographing strangers without their consent and why it needs to be defended with such a lofty rhetoric.

My best attempt to steelman this is that you think restricting your god given right to photograph strangers without their consent is some slippery slop towards having more rights taken away which is... a very weak point.

> Your country may infringe on your rights, but that doesn’t invalidate the assertion they exist.

This makes no sense to me. There is not right to photograph strangers without their consent in the declaration of human right and never has such right existed in my country so how can that be my right?

What the hell has photographing strangers without their consent to do with free speech?

Observing and publishing a list of who goes into the abortion clinic is a perfect example of the exercise of free speech. You don’t need a public interest to do so. Restricting what I can publish is a violation of that exact idea. Free speech means you can say very nearly anything without criminal penalty (libel is a civil matter).

My point is that the free people can do whatever they want, as long as they are not directly harming someone else. My right to waive my fists around ends where your nose begins. I don’t need to justify why I’m waiving my arms around. I don’t need to justify why I’m camped outside the abortion clinic. Maybe I hate abortions and am engaged in civil protest. These are all protected activities in a free country.

My assertion is that as a consequence of German policy with regards to speech, Germany is a fundamentally less free place. Who gets to decide whether something is in the public interest? Why is shaming abortion seekers not in that category?

Germany has historical experienced how fascists can weaponize free speech to gain power. One of the core tenants of modern Germany is to let this happen again.

Now, we might not be doing well but certainly the US is currently doing much worse. You are already at the building camps stage and it is unclear whether you will have free elections for long.

What is the point of theoretically having free speech for a migrant worker that might deported without any trial by the ICE, for a women that might die during pregnancy because abortion was banned? Those that allow fascists to speak freely will end up with no one but fascists speaking.

People that want to murder me should not be allowed to speak.

> My point is that the free people can do whatever they want, as long as they are not directly harming someone else.

And yes, someone writing that I visited an abortion clinic can do me harm. Same as someone making lists of practicing Jews by camping outside a synagogue can get those people hurt. Your free speech ends where it can hurt me and certain information about me being public can and will hurt me.

Making the lists is not the problem. It’s the rounding people up and sending them to camps that crosses the line. We already have laws about the circumstances required for citizens to be detained. Illegal aliens can be summarily deported, such were the risks they took when the broke the law to get here.

> for a women that might die during pregnancy because abortion was banned

To discuss abortion we would have to agree about things like "what is a person?". Many would reasonably argue that unborn children are humans too and therefore deserve their own freedom.

Allowing fascists to speak freely is the hallmark of a free society. Otherwise who gets to decide who the fascists are or are not? Free societies are free as a matter of principle, not as a matter of consequence.

”I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”

When Nazis marched through Skokie, Illinois in the 70s, it was Jewish lawyers who defended them. Being obsessed with liberty is a much better defence against tyranny than hoping the enormous government apparatus that determines who gets to speak and who does not will never be turned against you.

> someone writing that I visited an abortion clinic can do me harm

No they do not. Any person who reads what they wrote and decides to visit violence against you is doing you harm. Don’t shift blame away from violent actors, they make their own decisions. We already have laws about violence. You are not harmed by people simply knowing you had an abortion. It is a true fact about you.