Debate on Freedom of Speech:
No reversal of the roles of perpetrator and victim! — A response to Yascha Mounk
“In Europe, people are actually being imprisoned for their opinions,” is the title of Yascha Mounk’s essay. Jeanette Hofmann, political researcher at Berlin’s Freie Universität is specialized in digitalization and democracy. She disagrees and instead emphasizes the urgency of finding answers to the dilemma democracy finds itself in: Defending itself without compromising its principles.
One instinctively looks at the publication date to make sure that Yascha Mounk’s text is actually from April 2025 and not a year or two older. Helicopters may not have been flying over Columbia University in April yet, but the list of banned terms that – according to Executive Order 14151 issued by the US president – will be excluded from federal research funding in the future, had already been available for some time at that point. The first arrests of students exercising their rights to freedom of assembly and expression had also already taken place.
Parallels to JD Vance’s Munich speech
Yascha Mounk points the finger at Germany and the UK and makes no mention of the repression by the US government. In this respect, his article is disturbingly reminiscent of JD Vance’s speech at the Munich Security Conference in February this year.
Yascha Mounk is well aware of this similarity. At the end of his article, he addresses JD Vance’s “hypocrisy” in order to counter the expected contradiction in his own article with the argument that this does not change the criticism itself. On this point, Mounk is right: given the increasing restrictions on freedom of expression on both sides of the Atlantic, pointing out that one is sitting in a glass house would indeed be a lame response. Instead of resorting to whataboutism, it makes more sense to examine the author’s argument for its plausibility.
Indices for democracy and press freedom
Let’s first take a look at the available data: Reports published this year on international developments in democracy and human rights, including freedom of expression and freedom of the press in particular, paint a clear picture: For around 25 years, democracies around the world have been in retreat. At the same time, the number of autocratic states is steadily increasing; according to the Varieties of Democracy Project, there are currently 45 of them (V‑Dem: https://v‑dem.net/). That is almost four times as many as in the early 2000s. Next year, the US will also have to be added to this list. Restrictions on freedom of expression and freedom of the press are among the most important indicators of international democratic decline. In its latest report, the V‑Dem project notes that freedom of the press and freedom of expression deteriorated in 44 countries in 2024, a new low compared to previous years. In fact, open censorship and informal ways of obstruction of the press and freedom of expression are among the most important weapons in the autocrats’ arsenal.
Disinformation campaigns as a challenge for established media
Equally important is disinformation from above. In recent years, a disturbing correlation has unfolded between the emergence of political lies by the political elite, the polarization of the public sphere, and the decline of democracies. Surveys by the American organization Freedom House confirm these trends. According to its findings, the number of countries where independent reporting has come to a complete standstill has almost tripled in the last 20 years.[1] Attacks on the media were documented in 120 countries last year. The aggression does not always come from the government; extremist movements also attack journalists both verbally and physically. The organization Reporters Without Borders (RSF) reports on deliberate attempts by populist and extremist actors to cast doubt on the trustworthiness of the press in Germany. However, overall press freedom in Germany is rated as satisfactory. In the Word Press Freedom Index, Germany currently ranks 11th, the UK 20th, and the US 57th.
Europe has maintained its status as the “freest region in the world” in the Freedom House index, even though systematic violations of fundamental rights are reported in many countries. Germany’s record is mixed. While freedom of expression is generally upheld, legally legitimized surveillance of citizens has increased significantly. The Freedom House Index gives Germany 95 out of a possible 100 points (the UK 92, the US 84).
Despite all the reservations one might have about the representativeness and neutrality of quantitative measurements of democratic conditions[2], the various studies indicate that freedom of expression and freedom of the press in Germany are still relatively good in international comparison, and certainly in comparison with the US. It can be assumed that the gap between (Western) Europe and the US will even widen in the coming years. So can we sit back and relax? That would probably be a fatal misjudgment of the situation.
The USA: A blueprint for Europe?
For some time now, autocratic governments have been developing blueprints for dismantling democracy so that they can be imitated by like-minded colleagues elsewhere. In addition to the restructuring of constitutions and constitutional courts, this includes intimidation of the independent press, interference in academic freedom, attempts to delegitimize courts, judges, and law firms, as well as various reward systems for personal loyalty that encourage corruption. The increasingly dramatic violations of constitutional norms and procedures not only highlight how fragile and vulnerable the democratic institutions – that were recently considered unshakable – really are; they also give us a glimpse of what we might face in Germany in a few years’ time after another change of government. The current gap between the state of freedom of expression and freedom of the press in Europe and the US is therefore no cause for triumph; rather, it sends a shiver down the spine in view of the developments that may lie ahead. What if the destruction of democracy in the US becomes a blueprint for a future government here?
Nationalizing problems
The problem with Yascha Mounk’s essay is not that he generalizes individual cases or creates the impression that in Germany you have to expect to be thrown in jail at any time if you exercise your right to freedom of expression. The problem is that he nationalizes and personalizes the increasing legal, technical, and social restrictions on what can be said publicly in more and more democracies – pointing the finger at Europe, but above all at Germany, Great Britain, at Nancy Faeser, and Robert Habeck. The widespread erosion of democratic promises and guarantees of freedom that this reflects goes unmentioned. Also unmentioned is the obvious paradox of rampant restrictions on freedom of information and expression at a time when the media conditions for broad, democratic social understanding are better than ever before. The internet and platform technology have significantly lowered the barriers to horizontal social communication in the last 20 years. Why, under such conditions, are surveillance, persecution, and punishment on the rise?
Yascha Mounk’s criticism refers solely to the actions of governments. Brussels, Berlin, and London appear so overpowering that even social networks, which have themselves become indispensable infrastructures of public communication, seem like poor victims. Here, one would have wished for more nuance, more sensitivity to the political conflicts of interest and the extraordinarily complex dilemmas that digital communication has produced over the past 20 years.
Different legal traditions in the US and Europe
There has long been a mutual misunderstanding between the US and Europe regarding their respective interpretations and boundaries of the fundamental right to freedom of expression. While it is incomprehensible from an American perspective why Holocaust denial is a (widely accepted) criminal offense in many European countries, Europeans struggle to understand that even gross insults or defamation are protected by the US Constitution. The fifth article of the German Basic Law and the First Amendment to the US Constitution are alien to each other; they represent – and standardize – different ethical worlds. The different legal traditions also fuel Mounk’s criticism. In line with the American interpretation, he considers the German restrictions on freedom of expression to be “shockingly strict.” Even taking into account the existing national differences, the JD Vance-esque victim-perpetrator constellation in his text remains a mystery.
Hunting down critics or protecting citizens from orchestrated violence?
The British and German victims of censorship and prosecution whose stories Mounk shares with us are clearly harmless, innocent contemporaries. There is the elderly piano teacher at the music school who gives the middle finger; the pensioner who satirically calls former Minister of Economic Affairs Habeck an idiot and is subsequently subjected to a house search; the British parents who raise procedural questions about the selection of a school principal in a closed WhatsApp group and are promptly picked up by the police; the Scottish grandmother, and finally even an autistic teenager. These examples make it clear that all of them are upstanding citizens who have been harassed by the police and state censorship because they expressed their opinions. Mounk contrasts these victims with politicians who “hunt down critics.” Even if every single one of these cases happened exactly as described, the question arises as to whether this distribution of victim and perpetrator roles provides an accurate overall picture of the situation.
Anyone who has ever observed a media smear campaign or even been affected by one knows that it is not just indignant piano teachers and untrained police officers who are active in the public sphere. Verbal and visual violence tends to form on the extremist fringes of society, threatening marginalized groups and those who think differently. Organized shitstorms, hate speech, and smear campaigns are directed against journalism and academia, but also against local politics, especially when it deals with emotionally charged issues such as migration or gender issues. Anonymous threats of violence against individuals or their families are intended to intimidate people. The impact is asymmetrical, with women being affected more often than men, and progressive parties in politics more often than conservative ones. In some places, public space is taking on a toxic quality. This includes, not least, the social network X, which has celebrated a rather idiosyncratic interpretation of freedom of expression since Elon Musk took over. While calling Robert Habeck a “moron” did indeed lead to a house search, the Nazi label “public enemy” for Olaf Scholz went unpunished. Not everyone is relieved by this. On the contrary, those affected find the arbitrary case law oppressive.
Withdrawal from social media as a “hell of toxic, uncivilized content”
The result is widespread chilling effects that cool down public discourse. The Oxford-based Reuters Institute has been observing a retreat from the digital public sphere for years.[3] The practice of publicly sharing and commenting on news is declining; instead, political debate is taking place in closed spaces via messaging apps. While Yascha Mounk would probably blame this development on state censorship, the Reuters Institute emphasizes that there is no good explanation for it yet, but that the reputation of social networks as a “hell of toxic, uncivilized content” probably plays a role. Many people have gained the impression that caution is now advisable when making public statements on political topics in the digital space. I would confirm this from my own experience. Nowadays, it is wise to check even short comments for possible misunderstandings and points of attack. Anyone who expresses themselves publicly in a visible and possibly controversial manner lives dangerously and must expect personal attacks. The platforms that made the phenomenon of many-to-many communication and user-generated content technically possible and widespread are partly responsible for this situation. The decline in freedom of expression is therefore not only coming from above in the form of legislation, but also from below and from the side, from the infrastructure. As a result, the situation is much more confusing and complex than Yascha Mounk’s examples of innocent citizens would have us believe.
Social networks as instruments of power in public discourse
The platforms are by no means merely victims of government restrictions, as Mounk suggests. Contrary to what one might think, the major platforms do not interpret freedom of expression in the sense of the US Constitution. With the help of their community standards and guidelines, a form of private regulation, they filter content and increasingly structure public discussion. Because social networks now wield such power over visibility and invisibility in public discourse, the Digital Service Act (DSA) now requires them to be more transparent. In the future, they will have to disclose the purposes and rules of content moderation. If they control the flow of information with recommendation algorithms, users will now have the right to alternatives so that they can at least have a say in which posts are being displayed. It is a misunderstanding, not uncommon from an American perspective, to dismiss European platform regulation as mere harassment.
Yes, the European Digital Services Act (DSA) restricts freedom of expression. It provides illiberal democracies such as Hungary with new instruments to legally silence politically undesirable voices. At the same time, however, the DSA also takes important first steps toward curbing the communication and market power of platforms and strengthening the rights of users. What Mounk fails to mention is that the US state of New York took similar measures last year. The “Stop Hiding Hate” law requires platforms to disclose their content moderation rules, including their policies on hate speech. Interestingly, this also includes the definition of the relevant filter items, i.e., racism, disinformation, harassment, or foreign influence. The European Digital Services Act has sidestepped such provisions.
Lawful but harmful
The digital public sphere, in which everyone can actively participate, has now left the aura of the Arab Spring far behind. It is no longer just a blessing, but also a chronic problem for which there may be no good answers. The expression “lawful but harmful” sums up the dilemmas that the digital transformation of the public sphere has brought with it. This refers to statements that are protected by freedom of expression but cause harm to individuals and society. Examples include anti-vaccination campaigns, resistance to protective masks, and the promotion of alternative remedies such as hydroxychloroquine or even bleach during the COVID-19 pandemic. The credibility of scientific expertise has become a popular target for populist politicians (most of whom are men). Even when campaigns aim to discredit democratic institutions and, as in the case of hydroxychloroquine, cause demonstrable harm, they cannot be eliminated without undesirable side effects for the democratic state. How can a democracy defend itself against its opponents without violating its promises of freedom? This is the question that Yascha Mounk’s essay fails to answer because he does not even recognize it.
What are the answers to the fundamental dilemma of democracy?
Mounk is absolutely right to invoke the fallibility of censors in rejecting state censorship. Because knowledge is fundamentally provisional and we have to make do without ultimate truths, a democratic state cannot oblige its citizens to make correct statements. On the contrary, it must protect the conditions that promote public debate about the good life in all its details. So, is counter-speech the only democratic means of countering extremist and populist attacks on democracy? But what does that mean for dealing with far-reaching forms of incivility, with coordinated attacks on journalists, politicians, and scientists?
In the gray area of perpetrator-victim reversal
Mounk’s argument borders on classic perpetrator-victim reversal when he suggests that restrictions on freedom of expression reinforce polarization in public debate. In this context, polarization means that opponents no longer see each other as legitimate competitors, but as enemies who must be destroyed politically. Assertions and emotional terms replace reasoning. Is the greater presence of hatred, contempt, and anger in the public sphere now also a consequence of state suppression of freedom of expression, as Mounk speculates? The Variety of Democracy project proposes a different interpretation in its report this year: According to this interpretation, increasing polarization can be observed wherever autocratic governments spread disinformation to fuel mistrust in democratic institutions, including opposing parties: “When polarization is high, citizens are more willing to put democratic principles aside in favor of other interests” (V‑Dem 2025: 38, own translation). The British Brexit vote and the US elections in 2016 are cited as examples of this correlation. Brazil illustrates the opposite development: strict measures against disinformation during the election campaign helped to halt the country’s drift toward autocracy.
In a nutshell, over the past ten years we have had to observe and learn that greater freedom of expression, as enabled by the internet, does not necessarily lead to greater democracy. The digital transformation of the public sphere has exposed vulnerabilities in democracy that it cannot effectively protect against without jeopardizing its own principles and legitimacy. We would like to see political science acknowledge the risks inherent in this dilemma instead of pointing fingers at individual countries.
[1] https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2025/uphill-battle-to-safeguard-rights
[2] I co-authored the Freedom House report for Germany twice in the 2010s, so I know what I’m talking about.
Hat Ihnen unser Beitrag gefallen? Dann spenden Sie doch einfach und bequem über unser Spendentool. Sie unterstützen damit die publizistische Arbeit von LibMod.
Spenden mit Bankeinzug
Spenden mit PayPal
Wir sind als gemeinnützig anerkannt, entsprechend sind Spenden steuerlich absetzbar. Für eine Spendenbescheinigung (nötig bei einem Betrag über 200 EUR), senden Sie Ihre Adressdaten bitte an finanzen@libmod.de
