[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text css=\u201c\u201d]![](\"https:\/\/libmodredaktion.fra1.digitaloceanspaces.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/20250623150327\/500__free_speech.jpg\")
[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row css=\u201d.vc_custom_1508251598805{margin-top: 30px !important;}\u201d][vc_column width=\u201c2\/3\u201d css=\u201d.vc_custom_1508252250311{padding-right: 20px !important;}\u201d][vc_column_text css=\u201c\u201d]<\/p>\n
\u201cIn Europe, people are actually being imprisoned for their opinions,\u201d is the title of Yascha Mounk\u2019s essay. Jeanette Hofmann, political researcher at Berlin\u2019s Freie Univer\u00adsit\u00e4t<\/em> is specialized in digital\u00adization and democracy. She disagrees and instead empha\u00adsizes the urgency of finding answers to the dilemma democracy finds itself in: Defending itself without compro\u00admising its principles.<\/h3>\n[\/vc_column_text][vc_column_text css=\u201c\u201d]One instinc\u00adtively looks at the publi\u00adcation date to make sure that Yascha Mounk\u2019s 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 \u2013 according to Executive Order 14151 issued by the US president \u2013 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.<\/p>\n
Parallels to JD Vance\u2019s Munich speech<\/h2>\n
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\u2019s speech at the Munich Security Conference in February this year.<\/p>\n
Yascha Mounk is well aware of this similarity. At the end of his article, he addresses JD Vance\u2019s \u201chypocrisy\u201d in order to counter the expected contra\u00addiction in his own article with the argument that this does not change the criticism itself. On this point, Mounk is right: given the increasing restric\u00adtions 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<\/em>, it makes more sense to examine the author\u2019s argument for its plausibility.<\/p>\nIndices for democracy and press freedom<\/h2>\n
Let\u2019s first take a look at the available data: Reports published this year on inter\u00adna\u00adtional devel\u00adop\u00adments in democracy and human rights, including freedom of expression and freedom of the press in particular, paint a clear picture: For around 25 years, democ\u00adracies 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<\/em> Project, there are currently 45 of them (V\u2011Dem: https:\/\/v\u2011dem.net\/<\/a>). 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. Restric\u00adtions on freedom of expression and freedom of the press are among the most important indicators of inter\u00adna\u00adtional democ\u00adratic decline. In its latest report, the V\u2011Dem project notes that freedom of the press and freedom of expression deteri\u00ado\u00adrated 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\u2019 arsenal.<\/p>\nDisin\u00adfor\u00admation campaigns as a challenge for estab\u00adlished media<\/h2>\n
Equally important is disin\u00adfor\u00admation from above. In recent years, a disturbing corre\u00adlation has unfolded between the emergence of political lies by the political elite, the polar\u00adization of the public sphere, and the decline of democ\u00adracies. Surveys by the American organi\u00adzation Freedom House<\/em> confirm these trends. According to its findings, the number of countries where independent reporting has come to a complete stand\u00adstill has almost tripled in the last 20 years.[1]<\/a> 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 physi\u00adcally. The organi\u00adzation Reporters Without Borders<\/em> (RSF) reports on delib\u00aderate attempts by populist and extremist actors to cast doubt on the trust\u00adwor\u00adthiness of the press in Germany. However, overall press freedom in Germany is rated as satis\u00adfactory. In the Word Press Freedom Index<\/em>, Germany currently ranks 11th, the UK 20th, and the US 57th.<\/p>\nEurope has maintained its status as the \u201cfreest region in the world\u201d in the Freedom House<\/em> index, even though systematic viola\u00adtions of funda\u00admental rights are reported in many countries. Germany\u2019s record is mixed. While freedom of expression is generally upheld, legally legit\u00adimized surveil\u00adlance of citizens has increased signif\u00adi\u00adcantly. The Freedom House<\/em> Index gives Germany 95 out of a possible 100 points (the UK 92, the US 84).<\/p>\nDespite all the reser\u00adva\u00adtions one might have about the repre\u00adsen\u00adta\u00adtiveness and neutrality of quanti\u00adtative measure\u00adments of democ\u00adratic condi\u00adtions[2]<\/a>, the various studies indicate that freedom of expression and freedom of the press in Germany are still relatively good in inter\u00adna\u00adtional 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.<\/p>\nThe USA: A blueprint for Europe?<\/h2>\n
For some time now, autocratic govern\u00adments have been devel\u00adoping blueprints for disman\u00adtling democracy so that they can be imitated by like-minded colleagues elsewhere. In addition to the restruc\u00adturing of consti\u00adtu\u00adtions and consti\u00adtu\u00adtional courts, this includes intim\u00adi\u00addation of the independent press, inter\u00adference in academic freedom, attempts to delegit\u00adimize courts, judges, and law firms, as well as various reward systems for personal loyalty that encourage corruption. The increas\u00adingly dramatic viola\u00adtions of consti\u00adtu\u00adtional norms and proce\u00addures not only highlight how fragile and vulnerable the democ\u00adratic insti\u00adtu\u00adtions \u2013 that were recently considered unshakable \u2013 really are; they also give us a glimpse of what we might face in Germany in a few years\u2019 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 devel\u00adop\u00adments that may lie ahead. What if the destruction of democracy in the US becomes a blueprint for a future government here?<\/p>\n
Nation\u00adal\u00adizing problems<\/h2>\n
The problem with Yascha Mounk\u2019s essay is not that he gener\u00adalizes 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 nation\u00adalizes and person\u00adalizes the increasing legal, technical, and social restric\u00adtions on what can be said publicly in more and more democ\u00adracies \u2013 pointing the finger at Europe, but above all at Germany, Great Britain, at Nancy Faeser, and Robert Habeck. The widespread erosion of democ\u00adratic promises and guarantees of freedom that this reflects goes unmen\u00adtioned. Also unmen\u00adtioned is the obvious paradox of rampant restric\u00adtions on freedom of infor\u00admation and expression at a time when the media condi\u00adtions for broad, democ\u00adratic social under\u00adstanding are better than ever before. The internet and platform technology have signif\u00adi\u00adcantly lowered the barriers to horizontal social commu\u00adni\u00adcation in the last 20 years. Why, under such condi\u00adtions, are surveil\u00adlance, perse\u00adcution, and punishment on the rise?<\/p>\n
Yascha Mounk\u2019s criticism refers solely to the actions of govern\u00adments. Brussels, Berlin, and London appear so overpow\u00adering that even social networks, which have themselves become indis\u00adpensable infra\u00adstruc\u00adtures of public commu\u00adni\u00adcation, seem like poor victims. Here, one would have wished for more nuance, more sensi\u00adtivity to the political conflicts of interest and the extra\u00ador\u00addi\u00adnarily complex dilemmas that digital commu\u00adni\u00adcation has produced over the past 20 years.<\/p>\n
Different legal tradi\u00adtions in the US and Europe<\/h2>\n
There has long been a mutual misun\u00adder\u00adstanding between the US and Europe regarding their respective inter\u00adpre\u00adta\u00adtions and bound\u00adaries of the funda\u00admental right to freedom of expression. While it is incom\u00adpre\u00adhen\u00adsible from an American perspective why Holocaust denial is a (widely accepted) criminal offense in many European countries, Europeans struggle to under\u00adstand that even gross insults or defamation are protected by the US Consti\u00adtution. The fifth article of the German Basic Law and the First Amendment to the US Consti\u00adtution are alien to each other; they represent \u2013 and standardize \u2013 different ethical worlds. The different legal tradi\u00adtions also fuel Mounk\u2019s criticism. In line with the American inter\u00adpre\u00adtation, he considers the German restric\u00adtions on freedom of expression to be \u201cshock\u00adingly strict.\u201d Even taking into account the existing national differ\u00adences, the JD Vance-esque victim-perpe\u00adtrator constel\u00adlation in his text remains a mystery.<\/p>\n
Hunting down critics or protecting citizens from orches\u00adtrated violence?<\/h2>\n
The British and German victims of censorship and prose\u00adcution whose stories Mounk shares with us are clearly harmless, innocent contem\u00adpo\u00adraries. There is the elderly piano teacher at the music school who gives the middle finger; the pensioner who satir\u00adi\u00adcally calls former Minister of Economic Affairs Habeck an idiot and is subse\u00adquently subjected to a house search; the British parents who raise proce\u00addural questions about the selection of a school principal in a closed WhatsApp group and are promptly picked up by the police; the Scottish grand\u00admother, 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 politi\u00adcians who \u201chunt down critics.\u201d Even if every single one of these cases happened exactly as described, the question arises as to whether this distri\u00adb\u00adution of victim and perpe\u00adtrator roles provides an accurate overall picture of the situation.<\/p>\n
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, threat\u00adening margin\u00adalized groups and those who think differ\u00adently. 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 intim\u00adidate people. The impact is asymmet\u00adrical, with women being affected more often than men, and progressive parties in politics more often than conser\u00adv\u00adative 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 idiosyn\u00adcratic inter\u00adpre\u00adtation of freedom of expression since Elon Musk took over. While calling Robert Habeck a \u201cmoron<\/a>\u201d did indeed lead to a house search, the Nazi label \u201cpublic enemy\u201d for Olaf Scholz went unpun\u00adished. Not everyone is relieved by this. On the contrary, those affected find the arbitrary case law oppressive.<\/p>\nWithdrawal from social media as a \u201chell of toxic, unciv\u00adi\u00adlized content\u201d<\/h2>\n
The result is widespread chilling effects that cool down public discourse. The Oxford-based Reuters Institute<\/em> has been observing a retreat from the digital public sphere for years.[3<\/a>] 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 devel\u00adopment on state censorship, the Reuters Institute empha\u00adsizes that there is no good expla\u00adnation for it yet, but that the reputation of social networks as a \u201chell of toxic, unciv\u00adi\u00adlized content\u201d probably plays a role. Many people have gained the impression that caution is now advisable when making public state\u00adments 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 misun\u00adder\u00adstandings and points of attack. Anyone who expresses themselves publicly in a visible and possibly contro\u00adversial manner lives danger\u00adously and must expect personal attacks. The platforms that made the phenomenon of many-to-many commu\u00adni\u00adcation and user-generated content techni\u00adcally possible and widespread are partly respon\u00adsible for this situation. The decline in freedom of expression is therefore not only coming from above in the form of legis\u00adlation, but also from below and from the side, from the infra\u00adstructure. As a result, the situation is much more confusing and complex than Yascha Mounk\u2019s examples of innocent citizens would have us believe.<\/p>\nSocial networks as instru\u00adments of power in public discourse<\/h2>\n
The platforms are by no means merely victims of government restric\u00adtions, as Mounk suggests. Contrary to what one might think, the major platforms do not interpret freedom of expression in the sense of the US Consti\u00adtution. With the help of their community standards and guide\u00adlines, a form of private regulation, they filter content and increas\u00adingly structure public discussion. Because social networks now wield such power over visibility and invis\u00adi\u00adbility in public discourse, the Digital Service Act<\/em> (DSA) now requires them to be more trans\u00adparent. In the future, they will have to disclose the purposes and rules of content moder\u00adation. If they control the flow of infor\u00admation with recom\u00admen\u00addation algorithms, users will now have the right to alter\u00adna\u00adtives so that they can at least have a say in which posts are being displayed. It is a misun\u00adder\u00adstanding, not uncommon from an American perspective, to dismiss European platform regulation as mere harassment.<\/p>\nYes, the European Digital Services Act<\/em> (DSA) restricts freedom of expression. It provides illiberal democ\u00adracies such as Hungary with new instru\u00adments to legally silence polit\u00adi\u00adcally undesirable voices. At the same time, however, the DSA also takes important first steps toward curbing the commu\u00adni\u00adcation and market power of platforms and strength\u00adening the rights of users. What Mounk fails to mention is that the US state of New York took similar measures last year. The \u201cStop Hiding Hate\u201d law requires platforms to disclose their content moder\u00adation rules, including their policies on hate speech. Inter\u00adest\u00adingly, this also includes the defin\u00adition of the relevant filter items, i.e., racism, disin\u00adfor\u00admation, harassment, or foreign influence. The European Digital Services Act<\/em> has sidestepped such provisions.<\/p>\nLawful but harmful<\/h2>\n
The digital public sphere, in which everyone can actively partic\u00adipate, 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 \u201clawful but harmful\u201d sums up the dilemmas that the digital trans\u00adfor\u00admation of the public sphere has brought with it. This refers to state\u00adments that are protected by freedom of expression but cause harm to individuals and society. Examples include anti-vacci\u00adnation campaigns, resis\u00adtance to protective masks, and the promotion of alter\u00adnative remedies such as hydrox\u00ady\u00adchloro\u00adquine or even bleach during the COVID-19 pandemic. The credi\u00adbility of scien\u00adtific expertise has become a popular target for populist politi\u00adcians (most of whom are men). Even when campaigns aim to discredit democ\u00adratic insti\u00adtu\u00adtions and, as in the case of hydrox\u00ady\u00adchloro\u00adquine, cause demon\u00adstrable harm, they cannot be elimi\u00adnated without undesirable side effects for the democ\u00adratic state. How can a democracy defend itself against its opponents without violating its promises of freedom? This is the question that Yascha Mounk\u2019s essay fails to answer because he does not even recognize it.<\/p>\n
What are the answers to the funda\u00admental dilemma of democracy?<\/h2>\n
Mounk is absolutely right to invoke the falli\u00adbility of censors in rejecting state censorship. Because knowledge is funda\u00admen\u00adtally provi\u00adsional and we have to make do without ultimate truths, a democ\u00adratic state cannot oblige its citizens to make correct state\u00adments. On the contrary, it must protect the condi\u00adtions that promote public debate about the good life in all its details. So, is counter-speech the only democ\u00adratic means of countering extremist and populist attacks on democracy? But what does that mean for dealing with far-reaching forms of incivility, with coordi\u00adnated attacks on journalists, politi\u00adcians, and scientists?<\/p>\n
In the gray area of perpe\u00adtrator-victim reversal<\/h2>\n
Mounk\u2019s argument borders on classic perpe\u00adtrator-victim reversal when he suggests that restric\u00adtions on freedom of expression reinforce polar\u00adization in public debate. In this context, polar\u00adization means that opponents no longer see each other as legit\u00adimate competitors, but as enemies who must be destroyed polit\u00adi\u00adcally. Asser\u00adtions and emotional terms replace reasoning. Is the greater presence of hatred, contempt, and anger in the public sphere now also a conse\u00adquence of state suppression of freedom of expression, as Mounk specu\u00adlates? The Variety of Democracy<\/em> project proposes a different inter\u00adpre\u00adtation in its report this year: According to this inter\u00adpre\u00adtation, increasing polar\u00adization can be observed wherever autocratic govern\u00adments spread disin\u00adfor\u00admation to fuel mistrust in democ\u00adratic insti\u00adtu\u00adtions, including opposing parties: \u201cWhen polar\u00adization is high, citizens are more willing to put democ\u00adratic principles aside in favor of other interests\u201d (V\u2011Dem 2025: 38, own trans\u00adlation). The British Brexit vote and the US elections in 2016 are cited as examples of this corre\u00adlation. Brazil illus\u00adtrates the opposite devel\u00adopment: strict measures against disin\u00adfor\u00admation during the election campaign helped to halt the country\u2019s drift toward autocracy.<\/p>\nIn 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 neces\u00adsarily lead to greater democracy. The digital trans\u00adfor\u00admation of the public sphere has exposed vulner\u00ada\u00adbil\u00adities in democracy that it cannot effec\u00adtively protect against without jeopar\u00addizing its own principles and legit\u00adimacy. We would like to see political science acknowledge the risks inherent in this dilemma instead of pointing fingers at individual countries.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Indices for democracy and press freedom<\/h2>\n
Let\u2019s first take a look at the available data: Reports published this year on inter\u00adna\u00adtional devel\u00adop\u00adments in democracy and human rights, including freedom of expression and freedom of the press in particular, paint a clear picture: For around 25 years, democ\u00adracies 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<\/em> Project, there are currently 45 of them (V\u2011Dem: https:\/\/v\u2011dem.net\/<\/a>). 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. Restric\u00adtions on freedom of expression and freedom of the press are among the most important indicators of inter\u00adna\u00adtional democ\u00adratic decline. In its latest report, the V\u2011Dem project notes that freedom of the press and freedom of expression deteri\u00ado\u00adrated 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\u2019 arsenal.<\/p>\n Equally important is disin\u00adfor\u00admation from above. In recent years, a disturbing corre\u00adlation has unfolded between the emergence of political lies by the political elite, the polar\u00adization of the public sphere, and the decline of democ\u00adracies. Surveys by the American organi\u00adzation Freedom House<\/em> confirm these trends. According to its findings, the number of countries where independent reporting has come to a complete stand\u00adstill has almost tripled in the last 20 years.[1]<\/a> 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 physi\u00adcally. The organi\u00adzation Reporters Without Borders<\/em> (RSF) reports on delib\u00aderate attempts by populist and extremist actors to cast doubt on the trust\u00adwor\u00adthiness of the press in Germany. However, overall press freedom in Germany is rated as satis\u00adfactory. In the Word Press Freedom Index<\/em>, Germany currently ranks 11th, the UK 20th, and the US 57th.<\/p>\n Europe has maintained its status as the \u201cfreest region in the world\u201d in the Freedom House<\/em> index, even though systematic viola\u00adtions of funda\u00admental rights are reported in many countries. Germany\u2019s record is mixed. While freedom of expression is generally upheld, legally legit\u00adimized surveil\u00adlance of citizens has increased signif\u00adi\u00adcantly. The Freedom House<\/em> Index gives Germany 95 out of a possible 100 points (the UK 92, the US 84).<\/p>\n Despite all the reser\u00adva\u00adtions one might have about the repre\u00adsen\u00adta\u00adtiveness and neutrality of quanti\u00adtative measure\u00adments of democ\u00adratic condi\u00adtions[2]<\/a>, the various studies indicate that freedom of expression and freedom of the press in Germany are still relatively good in inter\u00adna\u00adtional 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.<\/p>\n For some time now, autocratic govern\u00adments have been devel\u00adoping blueprints for disman\u00adtling democracy so that they can be imitated by like-minded colleagues elsewhere. In addition to the restruc\u00adturing of consti\u00adtu\u00adtions and consti\u00adtu\u00adtional courts, this includes intim\u00adi\u00addation of the independent press, inter\u00adference in academic freedom, attempts to delegit\u00adimize courts, judges, and law firms, as well as various reward systems for personal loyalty that encourage corruption. The increas\u00adingly dramatic viola\u00adtions of consti\u00adtu\u00adtional norms and proce\u00addures not only highlight how fragile and vulnerable the democ\u00adratic insti\u00adtu\u00adtions \u2013 that were recently considered unshakable \u2013 really are; they also give us a glimpse of what we might face in Germany in a few years\u2019 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 devel\u00adop\u00adments that may lie ahead. What if the destruction of democracy in the US becomes a blueprint for a future government here?<\/p>\n The problem with Yascha Mounk\u2019s essay is not that he gener\u00adalizes 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 nation\u00adalizes and person\u00adalizes the increasing legal, technical, and social restric\u00adtions on what can be said publicly in more and more democ\u00adracies \u2013 pointing the finger at Europe, but above all at Germany, Great Britain, at Nancy Faeser, and Robert Habeck. The widespread erosion of democ\u00adratic promises and guarantees of freedom that this reflects goes unmen\u00adtioned. Also unmen\u00adtioned is the obvious paradox of rampant restric\u00adtions on freedom of infor\u00admation and expression at a time when the media condi\u00adtions for broad, democ\u00adratic social under\u00adstanding are better than ever before. The internet and platform technology have signif\u00adi\u00adcantly lowered the barriers to horizontal social commu\u00adni\u00adcation in the last 20 years. Why, under such condi\u00adtions, are surveil\u00adlance, perse\u00adcution, and punishment on the rise?<\/p>\n Yascha Mounk\u2019s criticism refers solely to the actions of govern\u00adments. Brussels, Berlin, and London appear so overpow\u00adering that even social networks, which have themselves become indis\u00adpensable infra\u00adstruc\u00adtures of public commu\u00adni\u00adcation, seem like poor victims. Here, one would have wished for more nuance, more sensi\u00adtivity to the political conflicts of interest and the extra\u00ador\u00addi\u00adnarily complex dilemmas that digital commu\u00adni\u00adcation has produced over the past 20 years.<\/p>\n There has long been a mutual misun\u00adder\u00adstanding between the US and Europe regarding their respective inter\u00adpre\u00adta\u00adtions and bound\u00adaries of the funda\u00admental right to freedom of expression. While it is incom\u00adpre\u00adhen\u00adsible from an American perspective why Holocaust denial is a (widely accepted) criminal offense in many European countries, Europeans struggle to under\u00adstand that even gross insults or defamation are protected by the US Consti\u00adtution. The fifth article of the German Basic Law and the First Amendment to the US Consti\u00adtution are alien to each other; they represent \u2013 and standardize \u2013 different ethical worlds. The different legal tradi\u00adtions also fuel Mounk\u2019s criticism. In line with the American inter\u00adpre\u00adtation, he considers the German restric\u00adtions on freedom of expression to be \u201cshock\u00adingly strict.\u201d Even taking into account the existing national differ\u00adences, the JD Vance-esque victim-perpe\u00adtrator constel\u00adlation in his text remains a mystery.<\/p>\n The British and German victims of censorship and prose\u00adcution whose stories Mounk shares with us are clearly harmless, innocent contem\u00adpo\u00adraries. There is the elderly piano teacher at the music school who gives the middle finger; the pensioner who satir\u00adi\u00adcally calls former Minister of Economic Affairs Habeck an idiot and is subse\u00adquently subjected to a house search; the British parents who raise proce\u00addural questions about the selection of a school principal in a closed WhatsApp group and are promptly picked up by the police; the Scottish grand\u00admother, 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 politi\u00adcians who \u201chunt down critics.\u201d Even if every single one of these cases happened exactly as described, the question arises as to whether this distri\u00adb\u00adution of victim and perpe\u00adtrator roles provides an accurate overall picture of the situation.<\/p>\n 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, threat\u00adening margin\u00adalized groups and those who think differ\u00adently. 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 intim\u00adidate people. The impact is asymmet\u00adrical, with women being affected more often than men, and progressive parties in politics more often than conser\u00adv\u00adative 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 idiosyn\u00adcratic inter\u00adpre\u00adtation of freedom of expression since Elon Musk took over. While calling Robert Habeck a \u201cmoron<\/a>\u201d did indeed lead to a house search, the Nazi label \u201cpublic enemy\u201d for Olaf Scholz went unpun\u00adished. Not everyone is relieved by this. On the contrary, those affected find the arbitrary case law oppressive.<\/p>\n The result is widespread chilling effects that cool down public discourse. The Oxford-based Reuters Institute<\/em> has been observing a retreat from the digital public sphere for years.[3<\/a>] 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 devel\u00adopment on state censorship, the Reuters Institute empha\u00adsizes that there is no good expla\u00adnation for it yet, but that the reputation of social networks as a \u201chell of toxic, unciv\u00adi\u00adlized content\u201d probably plays a role. Many people have gained the impression that caution is now advisable when making public state\u00adments 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 misun\u00adder\u00adstandings and points of attack. Anyone who expresses themselves publicly in a visible and possibly contro\u00adversial manner lives danger\u00adously and must expect personal attacks. The platforms that made the phenomenon of many-to-many commu\u00adni\u00adcation and user-generated content techni\u00adcally possible and widespread are partly respon\u00adsible for this situation. The decline in freedom of expression is therefore not only coming from above in the form of legis\u00adlation, but also from below and from the side, from the infra\u00adstructure. As a result, the situation is much more confusing and complex than Yascha Mounk\u2019s examples of innocent citizens would have us believe.<\/p>\n The platforms are by no means merely victims of government restric\u00adtions, as Mounk suggests. Contrary to what one might think, the major platforms do not interpret freedom of expression in the sense of the US Consti\u00adtution. With the help of their community standards and guide\u00adlines, a form of private regulation, they filter content and increas\u00adingly structure public discussion. Because social networks now wield such power over visibility and invis\u00adi\u00adbility in public discourse, the Digital Service Act<\/em> (DSA) now requires them to be more trans\u00adparent. In the future, they will have to disclose the purposes and rules of content moder\u00adation. If they control the flow of infor\u00admation with recom\u00admen\u00addation algorithms, users will now have the right to alter\u00adna\u00adtives so that they can at least have a say in which posts are being displayed. It is a misun\u00adder\u00adstanding, not uncommon from an American perspective, to dismiss European platform regulation as mere harassment.<\/p>\n Yes, the European Digital Services Act<\/em> (DSA) restricts freedom of expression. It provides illiberal democ\u00adracies such as Hungary with new instru\u00adments to legally silence polit\u00adi\u00adcally undesirable voices. At the same time, however, the DSA also takes important first steps toward curbing the commu\u00adni\u00adcation and market power of platforms and strength\u00adening the rights of users. What Mounk fails to mention is that the US state of New York took similar measures last year. The \u201cStop Hiding Hate\u201d law requires platforms to disclose their content moder\u00adation rules, including their policies on hate speech. Inter\u00adest\u00adingly, this also includes the defin\u00adition of the relevant filter items, i.e., racism, disin\u00adfor\u00admation, harassment, or foreign influence. The European Digital Services Act<\/em> has sidestepped such provisions.<\/p>\n The digital public sphere, in which everyone can actively partic\u00adipate, 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 \u201clawful but harmful\u201d sums up the dilemmas that the digital trans\u00adfor\u00admation of the public sphere has brought with it. This refers to state\u00adments that are protected by freedom of expression but cause harm to individuals and society. Examples include anti-vacci\u00adnation campaigns, resis\u00adtance to protective masks, and the promotion of alter\u00adnative remedies such as hydrox\u00ady\u00adchloro\u00adquine or even bleach during the COVID-19 pandemic. The credi\u00adbility of scien\u00adtific expertise has become a popular target for populist politi\u00adcians (most of whom are men). Even when campaigns aim to discredit democ\u00adratic insti\u00adtu\u00adtions and, as in the case of hydrox\u00ady\u00adchloro\u00adquine, cause demon\u00adstrable harm, they cannot be elimi\u00adnated without undesirable side effects for the democ\u00adratic state. How can a democracy defend itself against its opponents without violating its promises of freedom? This is the question that Yascha Mounk\u2019s essay fails to answer because he does not even recognize it.<\/p>\n Mounk is absolutely right to invoke the falli\u00adbility of censors in rejecting state censorship. Because knowledge is funda\u00admen\u00adtally provi\u00adsional and we have to make do without ultimate truths, a democ\u00adratic state cannot oblige its citizens to make correct state\u00adments. On the contrary, it must protect the condi\u00adtions that promote public debate about the good life in all its details. So, is counter-speech the only democ\u00adratic means of countering extremist and populist attacks on democracy? But what does that mean for dealing with far-reaching forms of incivility, with coordi\u00adnated attacks on journalists, politi\u00adcians, and scientists?<\/p>\n Mounk\u2019s argument borders on classic perpe\u00adtrator-victim reversal when he suggests that restric\u00adtions on freedom of expression reinforce polar\u00adization in public debate. In this context, polar\u00adization means that opponents no longer see each other as legit\u00adimate competitors, but as enemies who must be destroyed polit\u00adi\u00adcally. Asser\u00adtions and emotional terms replace reasoning. Is the greater presence of hatred, contempt, and anger in the public sphere now also a conse\u00adquence of state suppression of freedom of expression, as Mounk specu\u00adlates? The Variety of Democracy<\/em> project proposes a different inter\u00adpre\u00adtation in its report this year: According to this inter\u00adpre\u00adtation, increasing polar\u00adization can be observed wherever autocratic govern\u00adments spread disin\u00adfor\u00admation to fuel mistrust in democ\u00adratic insti\u00adtu\u00adtions, including opposing parties: \u201cWhen polar\u00adization is high, citizens are more willing to put democ\u00adratic principles aside in favor of other interests\u201d (V\u2011Dem 2025: 38, own trans\u00adlation). The British Brexit vote and the US elections in 2016 are cited as examples of this corre\u00adlation. Brazil illus\u00adtrates the opposite devel\u00adopment: strict measures against disin\u00adfor\u00admation during the election campaign helped to halt the country\u2019s drift toward autocracy.<\/p>\n 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 neces\u00adsarily lead to greater democracy. The digital trans\u00adfor\u00admation of the public sphere has exposed vulner\u00ada\u00adbil\u00adities in democracy that it cannot effec\u00adtively protect against without jeopar\u00addizing its own principles and legit\u00adimacy. We would like to see political science acknowledge the risks inherent in this dilemma instead of pointing fingers at individual countries.<\/p>\n <\/p>\nDisin\u00adfor\u00admation campaigns as a challenge for estab\u00adlished media<\/h2>\n
The USA: A blueprint for Europe?<\/h2>\n
Nation\u00adal\u00adizing problems<\/h2>\n
Different legal tradi\u00adtions in the US and Europe<\/h2>\n
Hunting down critics or protecting citizens from orches\u00adtrated violence?<\/h2>\n
Withdrawal from social media as a \u201chell of toxic, unciv\u00adi\u00adlized content\u201d<\/h2>\n
Social networks as instru\u00adments of power in public discourse<\/h2>\n
Lawful but harmful<\/h2>\n
What are the answers to the funda\u00admental dilemma of democracy?<\/h2>\n
In the gray area of perpe\u00adtrator-victim reversal<\/h2>\n
![\"Textende\"](\"http:\/\/libmodredaktion.fra1.digitaloceanspaces.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/20240905145906\/textende.png\")
[\/vc_column_text][vc_column_text css=\u201c\u201d][\/vc_column_text][vc_separator][vc_column_text]Hat Ihnen unser Beitrag gefallen? Dann spenden Sie doch einfach und bequem \u00fcber unser Spendentool. Sie unter\u00adst\u00fctzen damit die publizis\u00adtische Arbeit von LibMod.<\/p>\n