Germany’s New Coalition Government Tackles Disinformation: A Deep Dive into Free Speech Concerns
Germany’s newly formed coalition government, comprising the conservative CDU/CSU and the center-left SPD, has sparked controversy with its commitment to address disinformation and foreign influence in elections. A sentence in their 144-page coalition agreement stating that "the deliberate dissemination of false factual claims is not covered by freedom of expression" has drawn criticism from some quarters, raising concerns about potential restrictions on free speech. This article delves into the debate, examining the legal basis for the government’s stance and its potential implications.
The coalition agreement’s focus on disinformation stems from growing anxieties across Europe regarding the manipulation of elections through fabricated information. These concerns are amplified by recent incidents involving foreign actors attempting to sway German public opinion and elections. This has led to clashes between Berlin and Washington over democratic principles and free speech, further intensifying the debate.
Legal experts, however, argue that the contested sentence in the coalition agreement doesn’t introduce any new restrictions on free speech. They maintain it aligns with existing German constitutional law and jurisprudence. While Article 5 of Germany’s Basic Law guarantees freedom of expression, this protection does not extend to intentionally spreading verifiably false claims. This principle, established by the Federal Constitutional Court in numerous rulings dating back decades, affirms that knowingly disseminating untrue statements isn’t shielded by constitutional free speech protections.
Nathanael Liminski, Minister for Federal, European, International Affairs and Media of North Rhine-Westphalia, emphasizes that the coalition agreement aims to combat disinformation at European, federal, and state levels. He argues that freedom is not absolute and comes with responsibilities, asserting that freedom of speech has boundaries, particularly when it incites hatred or denies historical atrocities like the Holocaust.
Despite this clarification, legal experts stress that instances where speech falls outside constitutional protection are extremely rare. The bar for such exclusion is high, requiring undeniable proof of falsehood and intentional dissemination. Furthermore, even if a statement isn’t protected by the Basic Law, it doesn’t automatically become illegal. Criminal prosecution typically occurs when false statements are used to commit fraud, defame, or incite hatred, thus violating individual rights. Distinguishing such infringements in an electoral context, however, presents a more complex challenge.
Allegations that the new government plans to establish a "Ministry of Truth" are baseless. The coalition agreement actually proposes empowering the existing non-governmental media regulator to address information manipulation, hate speech, and incitement, while respecting freedom of expression and adhering to legal guidelines. This regulator comprises 14 independent state media authorities operating at the federal state level, separate from the government. While the agreement suggests a potentially stronger role for the regulator, it remains a political statement rather than binding law. Any changes would require legislative action and adherence to existing legal frameworks.
Finally, the coalition agreement’s call to prohibit "systematically deployed manipulative dissemination techniques" like bot networks and fake accounts raises further questions. While legally justifiable and potentially necessary, proportionally implementing such a prohibition presents a significant challenge. Establishing clear criteria to identify manipulative bot deployments is crucial to avoid overreach. Some experts question the German Federation’s competence to enact such a prohibition unilaterally, suggesting it might be more appropriate within the framework of EU-wide digital regulations like the Digital Services Act. Minister Liminski proposes that the government could advocate for strengthening the DSA to address this issue at the European level, aiming to counter the distortion of public discourse by manipulative online tactics.
