The 144-page coalition agreement signed last week between Germany’s conservative CDU/CSU political coalition and the central-left Social Democrats, citing “a serious threat to our democracy,” outlines steps to address “disinformation” and “targeted effects on elections.”
The move comes after a series of conflicts between Washington and Berlin over free speech and principles of democracy, as growing concerns in Europe about the effects of election disinformation.
Trump’s allies and tech magistrate Elon Musk tried ahead of the German election in February I’ll strengthen it As JD Vance brought the violent criticism that was supposed to be free speech suppression in Europe at the Munich Security Conference, Germany’s far-right alternative (AFD).
Secretary of State Marco Rubio has been around since. defendant Germany’s “disguised tyranny” Germany has since been suspended after the German intelligence agency labeled the AFD as a “right-wing extremist” party.
I’m conservative now commentator The new German government said:I’m banning lies“for Union trade Between CDU/CSU and SPD, “The intentional spread of false fact claims is not covered by freedom of expression.”
There is no change in the guarantee of freedom of speech
However, two legal experts told Euroverify that this excerpt from the Union Agreement “is nothing new” and is in line with the protection of free speech granted by German law.
“This ruling (…) is based on the case law of the German Constitutional Court, and therefore this is not entirely new,” according to Dr. Matthias Becker, professor of public and information law at the University of Mainz at Gutenberg.
Article 5 of the German Constitution, known as the Basic Law, guarantees freedom of expression and opinion, but it is strictly not always subject to freedom of expression that undoubtedly proven false claims are not true and spread in a deliberate way.
“According to the jurisdiction of our federal constitutional court, this has always been done under the constitution,” Dr. Ralph Muller Terpitz, chairman of public law, economic regulation law and media at Mannheim University, told Euroverify.
Correctiv, a portal to confirm German facts It was pointed out Until 1982, the Federal Constitutional Court held that statements not considered to be opinions were not automatically protected, particularly when related to “statements of facts that were proven or intentionally untrue.”
This has been confirmed in several cases, including the 2012 Federal Constitutional Court. Arbitration It found that “proven or intentionally false statements are not covered by protection” of German basic law.
Regional Ministers say there is a “boundary” in freedom of speech.
Natanael Riminsky, who was part of the media outlets of the federal, European, international affairs and western North Rhine River, told Euroverify that it was drafted to “enforce the fight against demonization at the federal and state level at the European level,” as he was part of the working group responsible for media policy for the Union Agreement.
“We have a tradition that freedom is not without responsibility. And this means that freedom has boundaries. At least in the European way of free speech, it is always related to responsibility, which means that freedom of speech has boundaries,” Minister Riminski said, citing anti-semism and the denial of the Holocaust as examples of concrete at those boundaries.
Experts defend strong freedom of speech protection
However, cases that are outside the scope of the protection of freedom of expression are extremely rare.
“Whenever you have doubts, you are within the scope of freedom of expression. Furthermore, combining a statement of fact, evaluation, and comments with a statement of fact within the scope of freedom of expression, even if the facts may be incorrect.”
Even if a statement is not protected by the Basic Law, it does not mean that it is prohibited by law or punished.
However, spreading false statements can lead to prosecution if used to commit fraud, honour or incite hatred. Such false claims are specifically infringing on the property or fundamental rights of a person.
The editor-in-chief of the far-right media outlet, affiliated with AFD, was recently handed over seven months in prison for spreading fake memes of former home minister Nancy Pheaser on social media. Honorary am loss incident It was strongly criticized by politicians for its seriousness. All aspects It was from the political spectrum and raised concerns about the reversal of free speech.
Professor Becker said these violations are more difficult to define, as they are related to “democratic concepts” and “collective goods” when it comes to disinformation in the context of elections.
Berlin claims to establish a “province of truth.”
Commentators also argue that the new government is set up to establish a so-called Ministry of Truth.Define Truth vs. lies. ”
This claim is unfounded. The coalition contract actually states that “non-governmental media regulators must be able to maintain freedom of expression and take action against hatred and incitement, against information manipulation and induction, based on clear legal guidelines.”
This refers to 14 independent state media authorities in Germany. Germany is organized at the federal state level, distant from the government.
While the wording of the coalition contract suggests a strong role for media regulators, Dr. Tobias Schmid, European Affairs Commissioner for the German Media Authority Board (DLM), told Euroverify: “It is important to recognize that this coalition is a political statement and not a law.”
“We are part of the enforcement power, and of course the binding part is the law, not some political ideas,” he added. “But I think that in addition to this, this coalition agreement generally says there is a clear focus on the issue of disinformation to protect media freedom.”
EU Digital Rules Book
The text of the Union Agreement also states that “it is necessary to prohibit operational dissemination techniques that systematically deploy operational dissemination techniques such as bot mass, collaborative use and fake accounts.”
Professor Becker said this is a task that could be “possible” and “justified, and it could be proportional,” with a robust ding shock to identify manipulated bots.
However, Professor Muller Terpitz said this would be a “subtle issue,” adding that “there is no impression that the (German) federation has the capacity to adopt laws that govern such a prohibition.”
Minister Riminski proposed taking away the euro that such a ban could possibly emerge as part of the further “development” of the EU’s drastic digital rulebook, the Digital Services Act.
“We have made very specific proposals for the treaty, for example, by fighting the massive use of bot fake accounts, the federal government should launch initiatives to improve digital services laws,” explained Riminsky. “And this is distorting public spaces, so we have to fight against this.”
