Most Western nations claim that they honor free speech. Constitutions around the world are centered around it. But if you move outside the political consensus in many European countries, that promise increasingly rings hollow. While this is prevalent in many European countries, Germany has some particularly dramatic examples this essay will analyze. In April 2025, a right-wing journalist named David Bendels got a seven-month sentence on parole for the crime of “defamation.” His crime? Photoshopping the sentence “I hate freedom of speech” on a chalkboard held by the Federal Minister of the Interior Nancy Faeser. The irony almost seems like a Greek tragicomedy: by criminally punishing someone for criticizing the government’s hostility to free speech, the state validates the very critique.
Even more shocking to the theoretical concept of free speech, which modern democracy claims to uphold, is the start-up which was co-founded by the leader of the youth organization of the “classical liberal” party of Germany I am also a member of, Franziska Brandmann. The start-up “So Done” has made it their mission to hand in as many lawsuits for expression in the digital world as possible. Using AI to scour social media sites after “defamatory” or “insulting” comments directed at their clients, they then streamline the lawsuit and legal costs, profiting by taking a commission from every citizen convicted for his speech. Quoting their website: “We help people who are repeatedly victims of online hate to filter out relevant comments, have them legally reviewed by a law firm, and take legal action against the perpetrators with our litigation funding.” In practice, it’s a for-profit censorship machine—an unholy alliance of automated surveillance, legal intimidation, and moral crusading. Orwell would have called it a Ministry of Digital Purity.
Now, it must be understood that the blame on this “start-up” must not be laid on the founders of “So Done.” While comfortable, this would fully gloss over the real issue which can be found through the existence of a denunciation business. They found a niche, even if the niche seems unethical, established an economy of scale by exploiting the government regulations which had been previously established. They acted in their praxeological interests. These interests were completely immoral from any position of liberalism, however, and this person does not belong in a ruling position of a party claiming to stand for liberty. However, the blame on this company must purely be laid on the politicians and bureaucrats which made this Orwellian company and its business model even possible.
Defenders of the status quo on free speech policy might claim that German speech law penalizes “dangerous” or “inflammatory” language regardless of the ideological foundations of the writer. But the reality tells a different story. However, this argument can be quickly bypassed by focusing on another speech case in Germany. El Hotzo—a left-wing comedian—was recently tried for publicly expressing his wish that Trump’s assassination had ended successfully. He was tried and acquitted. That, in general, is something which is morally the correct decision. Free speech extends to anyone, no matter of political ideology. However, the hypocrisy of the two trials, when compared with each other, still strikes an incredible imbalance. If wishing death upon a US president is considered protected speech, then surely suggesting that a German minister dislikes free expression must be as well.
To understand what the theoretical facade of these cases were, consider the German §186 StGB (translated into English):
Anyone who asserts or disseminates a fact in relation to another person which is likely to make that person contemptible or to degrade that person in the public opinion shall, unless this fact is demonstrably true, be punished with imprisonment of up to one year or a fine and, if the act is committed publicly, in an assembly or by disseminating content, with imprisonment of up to two years or a fine.
This has one main inconsistency: the government has the full-fledged power to define what constitutes “truth.” For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the theory that the disease was created in a laboratory was claimed to be a lie and conspiracy theory. Now, years later, even the quite partisan, left-leaning Guardian writes that: “The Covid ‘lab leak’ theory isn’t just a rightwing conspiracy.” This example directly proves that a “truth” or “lie” can never be a fully established concept. Therefore, arresting people for an opinion piece which is not “demonstrably true” directly contradicts critical thinking. The same system which is a vital element in the scientific method—formulating a hypothesis before collecting data to prove the hypothesis right or wrong—was now made illegal in Germany if the hypothesis regards a person.
The inconsistencies reveal a structural issue in modern society: the erosion of freedom of speech can and will never be a neutral principle due to there being no way to accurately define what falls under “defamation” or similar paragraphs. The result is a legal system that doesn’t protect the free exchange of ideas, or even makes an accurate and fair distinction between free speech and so-called “hate speech,” but ends up enforces speech codes to favor one side of the political spectrum.
However, the more philosophical questions must be asked. Modern society all across the world is starting to scrutinize free speech more and more. This has to do with digital media overtaking old-school print media. Before the internet, mass communication was much simpler to control for governments. It mainly consisted of a number of major newspapers and TV stations which could be found nationwide, and a higher number of smaller regional stations which were mainly supplements to national media. In Germany, a state-owned media which citizens pay a special tax for—the Öffentlich-Rechtlicher Rundfunk—was long by far the most-watched TV station. Other stations were also present and frequently watched, while strictly regulated, but the supply for media remained low and rather constrained by the current political mainstream.
However, with modern internet establishing a more free expression being possible, the media structure changed from a fixed system into a system with the possibility for spontaneous order. The information economy developed into a decentralized economy in which any consumer can choose through his own values and preferences which site to choose, which website to get his news from or which Twitter user to follow. Over time, therefore, a dynamically changing media system is established in which there is competition and new formats arriving, if desired by the market.
This is an issue for old-school news providers. They are seen as less trustworthy and still cling to a top-down information distribution system which is fixed and provides less value to the consumer as it is in no way specialized to the needs and wants of the consumer. As the main German media is furthermore state-owned and controlled by a board which is appointed by German state governments, it seems rather clear that media is threatened by the emergence of an open market for information to be disseminated. The only way they see as functional to retain a non-free market for information is to close this market for information in the long run is by shutting down the so-called right to free speech.
Germany poses an example in which hypocritical judgements and Orwellian start-ups profiting from censorship have shown Americans why they must not go down the same path regarding the cutting of free speech that Europeans have been walking down for a long time now.
