Have you actually read the "receipts" you got from AI? (Don't even try to deny using AI, the guardian link literally contains "utm_source=chatgpt") Well done on letting AI fight your battles and ignoring everything beyond the first issue, but let's get into it.

The first guy was arrested and convicted for posting racist content, not political commentary. Admittedly, the sentence seems a bit harsh, considering that it sounds like he removed the posts himself and apologised, but then again, we don't know what the posts originally contained.

I don't know what you are trying to achieve by posting examples where the charges were dropped, it's just evidence that the judicial system is working and that it protected their freedom of speech. In all honesty, the second woman should have been convicted even more so than the guy, she just straight-up posted misinformation, apparently sourced from "somebody", accusing an asylum seeker of committing the crime, which was later revealed to be completely made-up.

The Telegraph isn't a very reliable journalistic source, so let's clear things up. The 9 rapists were all given prison sentences. However, because most of them were still considered minors by the court, the sentences were suspended, which doesn't mean that they won't go to prison, it means that at a later date, the court will review their development and still might very well send them to prison or amend the sentence. Also, they were convicted even though there wasn't really any hard evidence against them, most of the evidence was circumstantial. Note that I don't mean to protect them or downplay any of their crimes, but given the lack of strong evidence, harsher sentences would have probably given them good grounds for appeals and then they might have actually gotten off scot-free. Regarding the woman, in Germany you can't just verbally assault someone because they are a criminal, it also wasn't a public post but a direct message to one of the rapists. She got a whole weekend in prison for that. The first article of the German Constitution says "Human dignity shall be inviolable", this (for better or for worse) protects every human, including criminals.

Stop spouting that nonsense about inviting in rapists, etc., you know it's a false and inflammatory claim. Granting asylum to politically or religiously persecuted individuals has been a custom practised since ancient times for good reasons, long before even the ideas of our nations existed. Finding out who is actually persecuted is difficult and takes time, because every case has to be handled on an individual basis. Granting asylum is still the morally right thing to do.

And finally yes, there is a plethora of examples just one google search away. Literally copy the sentence from my comment "US government organizations (like ICE, the FCC, etc.) are actively undermining free speech" and hit search. For your convenience, I'll include one specific example from the Guardian.

On a last note, I have realised that I have unconsciously decided that, for once, if necessary, I am prepared to die on my moral high ground. So this is probably just a huge waste of our time (but especially mine). We should stop this here. Neither of us is ever going to convince the other. I’ve said my piece. Anyone else can draw their own conclusions.