Things aren't "rosy" but it's a stretch to call these thought crimes - they're not on the same metaphysical level as thought, because speech is not thought. The

Things aren't "rosy" but it's a stretch to call these thought crimes - they're not on the same metaphysical level as thought, because speech is not thought. There's no restriction on thinking about Holocaust denial, for instance. All attempts to date in academic philosophy to try and collapse freedom of speech into freedom of thought have failed to convince almost all philosophers or speech law scholars. Speech is an action, just like any other. Like other actions, it is expressive, context-dependent, subject to interpretation, it is a physical phenomenon, that has physical effects on its listeners. It was also shown by Brison[0], Schauer[1] and others that the consequences of speech, in particular ones of harm, can be remarkably similar metaphysically and in gravity. Whether or not the German government's regulations are good ones, the conclusion that a government should have no right to regulate speech (just as it regulates other actions) seems to be on shaky ground. [0] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/legal-theory/article/speech-harm-and-the-mindbody-problem-in-first-amendment-jurisprudence/53914EFBC1337D487D8E2119DD9D244B https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/legal-theory/article... [1] https://www.jstor.org/stable/2381631?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents https://www.jstor.org/stable/2381631?seq=1#metadata_info_tab...