> If "YouTubers" are journalists, then everyone is a journalist.
In a way, yes. That is what freedom of the press means, and it is a core principle of the Western world. Anyone can start a blog, write articles, take photos, make videos, and share them publicly. That is, and should remain, legal. No authority can decide who qualifies as a journalist.
There are no official press credentials in law either. The passes that some news agencies issue are simply pieces of paper with no legal weight, because press freedom is a fundamental right for every citizen.
The idea that someone cannot be a journalist simply because they are not part of a large agency is mistaken. It is just as mistaken to assume that independent journalists will automatically act irresponsibly.
> Am I the public? Cause, I am super happy people can't just film and publish me walking in public.
There is no expectation of privacy in public. Of course no one can come to you and hold their camera in your face. That's not allowed. But if you happen to be walking around and there's some news agency or journalist that has a camera on to something else (again in public) like a tourist attraction, then of course you will be on their film and they do not have to ask you before putting it on YouTube.
> Anyone can start a blog, write articles, take photos, make videos, and share them publicly.
Taking a photo, or making a video doesn't make me a journalist. Adhering to "journalistische Sorgfaltspflicht" is a legal requirement.
> Eine zentrale Anforderung an die Presse ist die Einhaltung der publizistischen oder journalistischen Sorgfaltspflicht bei der Berichterstattung. Es handelt sich um einen allgemeinen medienrechtlichen Grundsatz, der für verkörperte Presseerzeugnisse in den Pressegesetzen der Länder gesetzlich verankert ist.
> Persönlichkeitsrechte
> Die Presse achtet das Privatleben des Menschen und seine informationelle Selbstbestimmung. Ist aber sein Verhalten von öffentlichem Interesse, so kann es in der Presse erörtert werden. Bei einer identifizierenden Berichterstattung muss das Informationsinteresse der Öffentlichkeit die schutzwürdigen Interessen von Betroffenen überwiegen; bloße Sensationsinteressen rechtfertigen keine identifizierende Berichterstattung. Soweit eine Anonymisierung geboten ist, muss sie wirksam sein.
The expectation of privacy and being in "public" are somewhat independent things, as explained earlier. The threshold isn't just "in your face", but if someone is identifiable or not.
> Taking a photo, or making a video doesn't make me a journalist. Adhering to "journalistische Sorgfaltspflicht" is a legal requirement.
Again, I am telling you that YouTubers have been ordered by the police to stop filming in public.
The same assumption was made about them as you are making now ("Oh, boy..."), namely that they would not adhere to journalistic due diligence. But assuming that someone might not behave lawfully is not a crime. I cannot simply call the police on someone and say, "I think this person is suspicious and will commit a crime by filming in pubic" and then expect the police to issue unlawful orders based on that assumption. That is not how the law works.
It is actually the other way around: you must assume that an independent journalist (including YouTubers) follows journalistic due diligence. Only if he or she publishes a video without proper blurring or in violation of due diligence can you engage a lawyer to take action. Otherwise, the presumption of innocence applies.
Well, since you didn't provide any example of "famous YouTuber" incidents, it's hard to judge. For certain, if they were livestreaming it implies not adhering to journalistic due diligence. And depending on the situation, it might have been clear, there was nothing of public interest around. Maybe people have asked not to be filmed. Quite easy to construct something as something else entirely, especially, if the outrage is weighed in ad-money. In any case, misbehaving police doesn't mean much either to the argument. Isolated incidents don't reflect the situation of a country. The question is about legality, which can only be considered by the ultimate outcome when legally challenged. Did those YouTubers press charges?
> Otherwise, the presumption of innocence applies
No, the police is allowed act on experience and context. Eg. "racial profiling" is legal in certain areas.
> The same assumption was made about them as you are making now ("Oh, boy...")
The Oh boy was due to the US human rights report reference, implying people in Germany care no less. Doubtfully in good faith, otherwise such a wild thing to bring up/fall for in 2025. I mean, praising the US as a bastion of democratic virtue is frankly insane. "Two" party system, gerrymandering, banned books, religious/political indoctrination of children, limited bodily self-determination and -expression, secret courts, total surveillance, no rule of law, press banned, killing of journalists, blatant misinformation and erasure/rewriting unpleasant history, .... But yeah, great you can legally buy everything you need to shoot up a school and legally mock the victims afterwards. The hustle more sacred than voting.
Honestly, their take on "press freedom" you praised, what does it amount to in your opinion? Because to me, sure enough, "truth" means nothing to freedom, if you neglect the bigger picture, which makes information actionable. Germany does far, far better with the bigger picture. It's straight dishonest to get hung up on some single incidences, which may, or may not have happened.
And looking forward, the laws around freedom of press didn't think of YouTube, Twitch and TikTok, when written. Information traveled slower, lies could be exposed and corrected. In today's world, we need to figure out a way to deal with Russian troll farms, Heritage Foundation campaigns, billionaire hubris, and algorithms enslaving people's minds. Exposure isn't any longer the corrective factor, but outreach and attention is. A large chunk of the population is already caught in some kind of alternative reality, completely immune to facts and reason.
> It's straight dishonest to get hung up on some single incidences, which may, or may not have happened.
I think we now agree that if such incidents did occur, you acknowledge that charges could be pressed. However, I may not have made my point clearly enough. My intention was not to highlight random YouTuber incidents, but to draw attention to misconduct by officials in the course of their duties and our restrictions/regulations.
For example, just four days ago the headline read: "97 Bundeswehr soldiers dismissed for right-wing extremism." [1]
We could argue that the Bundeswehr is not law enforcement, but there have been similar right-wing issues within police departments, where officers have shared extremist content. What I want to emphasize is that this is not about single incidents, but about a growing systemic issue of misconduct in law enforcement. And those who could provide the strongest proof of such misconduct - through video evidence - (journalists) are often prohibited from doing so.
> Did those YouTubers press charges?
Imagine your word against two or more officers. Who will the judges believe? Most likely the officers, unless you have very strong proof, such as video evidence. I hope my point is clearer now: this is not about isolated incidents, but about a broader systemic problem, fueled by the growing popularity of right-wing views within law enforcement and our harsh restrictions and regulations, which are strictest in the free world. It is the combination of both which is dangerous.
> I think we now agree that if such incidents did occur, you acknowledge that charges could be pressed.
Why worry about hypotheticals? Lol.
I mean yeah, all very concerning, but you are shifting the narrative, moving the goalpost a lot, now. It's frustrating and doesn't paint you as someone interested in honest exploration of a topic. Quite frankly, that's the only point made clear.
I mean, you can have your own opinion on whether I shift the narrative or move the goalpost, and that is fair enough.
But if you scroll all the way up to my first comment I said:
> In Germany, you are generally not allowed to film law enforcement. If someone feels they have been treated "unfairly", good luck to prove that in court when two officers present a completely different version of event ...
And in my last comment about the matter I said:
> Imagine your word against two or more officers. Who will the judges believe? Most likely the officers, unless you have very strong proof, such as video evidence. I hope my point is clearer now ...
I would say this pretty much matches very well, YMMV
In a way, yes. That is what freedom of the press means, and it is a core principle of the Western world. Anyone can start a blog, write articles, take photos, make videos, and share them publicly. That is, and should remain, legal. No authority can decide who qualifies as a journalist.
There are no official press credentials in law either. The passes that some news agencies issue are simply pieces of paper with no legal weight, because press freedom is a fundamental right for every citizen.
The idea that someone cannot be a journalist simply because they are not part of a large agency is mistaken. It is just as mistaken to assume that independent journalists will automatically act irresponsibly.
> Am I the public? Cause, I am super happy people can't just film and publish me walking in public.
There is no expectation of privacy in public. Of course no one can come to you and hold their camera in your face. That's not allowed. But if you happen to be walking around and there's some news agency or journalist that has a camera on to something else (again in public) like a tourist attraction, then of course you will be on their film and they do not have to ask you before putting it on YouTube.