Germany’s increasingly restrictive free speech legislation has come under international scrutiny, highlighted by a recent CBS television network exposé titled ‘Posting hateful speech online could lead to police raiding your home in this European country.’ The programme, which featured interviews with German prosecutors, a Green Party politician, and the head of a government-backed anti-hate speech NGO, revealed a striking indifference toward freedom of expression.
Germany stands out among European countries in its extensive framework of laws and institutions restricting free speech and its top-down attempts to control public debate. While some of these measures date back to the post-war period, many have emerged more recently with the rise of populism. Laws restricting free speech have either been introduced or amended under the guise of combating extremism, particularly the far right. The German doctrine of “defensive democracy”—a principle that argues that democratic threats must be eliminated at their earliest stages—has been used to legitimise these initiatives.
Two laws have become particularly notorious: Section 188 of the Penal Code, which criminalises “insults” to politicians, and Section 130, which prohibits the “incitement of masses.” These laws have led to hundreds of prosecutions and convictions in the past months, particularly as the government has come under pressure over criticism of its migration and COVID-19 policies.
The severity of these measures can be illustrated by these examples:
In the spring of 2024, police conducted a pre-dawn raid on a Bavarian pensioner’s home for sharing a social media post that showed Economics Minister Robert Habeck’s photo with the caption “Schwachkopf PROFESSIONAL,” which roughly translates as “professional moron,” —a play on the ‘Schwarzkopf Professional’ shampoo brand name.
In December 2024, authorities fined a pensioner €800 for criticising Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock on the Foreign Ministry’s contact page. The citizen’s comment referenced the minister’s past as a trampolinist and her stance on transgender legislation, stating: “Almost the entire nation is feverishly asking the question: when will Baerbock overcome his or her puberty, when will Baerbock finally grow up? Some evil tongues think never, because she has banged her head on the ceiling too often while trampolining.”
In January 2025 a 74-year-old woman received a €7,950 fine under Section 130 for criticising migration policy writing: “Blah, blah, blah. We need skilled workers, not asylum seekers who just want to make a nice life here without respecting our values and culture. Send those who are here to work. We don’t need idlers and scroungers, and we certainly don’t need knife artists and rapists.“ The comment was posted on Facebook in response to a statement by Robert Habeck about Germany’s need for migration.
Despite these concerning developments, established political parties have largely ignored free speech issues in their election campaigns. Even the opposition CDU’s election programme endorses defensive democracy, with only a small group of party dissidents challenging Section 188. These critics have initiated a petition which argues that unlike politicians, trained in careful rhetoric, citizens express themselves more directly, especially during times of social stress—and should be able to do so without fear of prosecution.
Beyond legislative restrictions, state institutions have also increasingly attempted to shape public discourse. The Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) exemplifies this trend, using its authority to monitor citizens’ speech and label certain political movements as “extremist and unconstitutional.” Its designation of the right-populist AfD as in parts “extremist and unconstitutional” has helped to stigmatise the party and its supporters. Thomas Haldenwang, the former BfV head, alongside Interior Minister Nancy Faeser, declared: “We must not only focus on violent right-wing extremism, but also on shifting verbal and mental boundaries.”
This climate of restriction has measurable effects. An Allensbach Institute survey from 2024 reveals that most Germans now feel unable to express their opinions freely. The survey revealed a stark divide: 78% of Green Party and 61% of Social Democrat voters perceive no speech restrictions. In contrast, 88% of AfD supporters feel heavily censored—a demographic the government has deliberately marginalised. The government’s approach is clearly designed to further alienate voters and cement divisions. Interior Minister Faeser’s warning that “Anyone who mocks the state will have to deal with a strong state” exemplifies this. Constitutional law professor Rupert Scholz characterised this approach as a “massive intimidation campaign” against government critics.
This stifling climate has also extended into Germany’s media landscape and affected reporting about issues such as Germany’s failed energy policy, international populist movements, COVID-19, climate change, migration or Islamism.
Germany’s public broadcasters—ARD, ZDF, and Deutschlandfunk—deserve particular scrutiny. These networks command an enormous €9 billion annual budget through mandatory license fees, yet face growing public scepticism. Despite ARD’s self-proclaimed status as the “epitome of credibility and expertise,” a 2023 INSA survey revealed that less than half of Germans trust the network. Among young adults aged 18-29, trust plummets to just one-third.
Alexander Teske, a former ARD planning editor, provides troubling insights in his recent book. He describes how reporters routinely filter stories through ideological lenses, particularly in coverage of demonstrations and anti-government protests in former East Germany. Instead of balanced reporting, journalists often cherry-pick the most inflammatory statements. Fear of missteps has led many newsrooms to simply echo each other’s coverage rather than conduct independent journalism.
In response to these constraints, alternative media platforms have emerged and gained popularity despite facing pressure through advertising boycotts and legal threats—reflecting a growing public demand for more open debate
Whether a new government abolishes Germany’s repressive anti-free speech laws, and resists the temptation to attempt to stigmatise critics, will serve as a touchstone of its genuine commitment to democracy in Germany.
Silenced German Right-Wing Voices Set to Speak Freely in the Voting Booths
An election campaign poster featuring Chancellor Olaf Scholz in Oberhausen, Western Germany, on February 21, 2025, ahead of the parliamentary elections of February 23, 2025.
Volker Hartmann / AFP
Germany’s increasingly restrictive free speech legislation has come under international scrutiny, highlighted by a recent CBS television network exposé titled ‘Posting hateful speech online could lead to police raiding your home in this European country.’ The programme, which featured interviews with German prosecutors, a Green Party politician, and the head of a government-backed anti-hate speech NGO, revealed a striking indifference toward freedom of expression.
Germany stands out among European countries in its extensive framework of laws and institutions restricting free speech and its top-down attempts to control public debate. While some of these measures date back to the post-war period, many have emerged more recently with the rise of populism. Laws restricting free speech have either been introduced or amended under the guise of combating extremism, particularly the far right. The German doctrine of “defensive democracy”—a principle that argues that democratic threats must be eliminated at their earliest stages—has been used to legitimise these initiatives.
Two laws have become particularly notorious: Section 188 of the Penal Code, which criminalises “insults” to politicians, and Section 130, which prohibits the “incitement of masses.” These laws have led to hundreds of prosecutions and convictions in the past months, particularly as the government has come under pressure over criticism of its migration and COVID-19 policies.
The severity of these measures can be illustrated by these examples:
In the spring of 2024, police conducted a pre-dawn raid on a Bavarian pensioner’s home for sharing a social media post that showed Economics Minister Robert Habeck’s photo with the caption “Schwachkopf PROFESSIONAL,” which roughly translates as “professional moron,” —a play on the ‘Schwarzkopf Professional’ shampoo brand name.
In December 2024, authorities fined a pensioner €800 for criticising Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock on the Foreign Ministry’s contact page. The citizen’s comment referenced the minister’s past as a trampolinist and her stance on transgender legislation, stating: “Almost the entire nation is feverishly asking the question: when will Baerbock overcome his or her puberty, when will Baerbock finally grow up? Some evil tongues think never, because she has banged her head on the ceiling too often while trampolining.”
In January 2025 a 74-year-old woman received a €7,950 fine under Section 130 for criticising migration policy writing: “Blah, blah, blah. We need skilled workers, not asylum seekers who just want to make a nice life here without respecting our values and culture. Send those who are here to work. We don’t need idlers and scroungers, and we certainly don’t need knife artists and rapists.“ The comment was posted on Facebook in response to a statement by Robert Habeck about Germany’s need for migration.
Despite these concerning developments, established political parties have largely ignored free speech issues in their election campaigns. Even the opposition CDU’s election programme endorses defensive democracy, with only a small group of party dissidents challenging Section 188. These critics have initiated a petition which argues that unlike politicians, trained in careful rhetoric, citizens express themselves more directly, especially during times of social stress—and should be able to do so without fear of prosecution.
Beyond legislative restrictions, state institutions have also increasingly attempted to shape public discourse. The Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) exemplifies this trend, using its authority to monitor citizens’ speech and label certain political movements as “extremist and unconstitutional.” Its designation of the right-populist AfD as in parts “extremist and unconstitutional” has helped to stigmatise the party and its supporters. Thomas Haldenwang, the former BfV head, alongside Interior Minister Nancy Faeser, declared: “We must not only focus on violent right-wing extremism, but also on shifting verbal and mental boundaries.”
This climate of restriction has measurable effects. An Allensbach Institute survey from 2024 reveals that most Germans now feel unable to express their opinions freely. The survey revealed a stark divide: 78% of Green Party and 61% of Social Democrat voters perceive no speech restrictions. In contrast, 88% of AfD supporters feel heavily censored—a demographic the government has deliberately marginalised. The government’s approach is clearly designed to further alienate voters and cement divisions. Interior Minister Faeser’s warning that “Anyone who mocks the state will have to deal with a strong state” exemplifies this. Constitutional law professor Rupert Scholz characterised this approach as a “massive intimidation campaign” against government critics.
This stifling climate has also extended into Germany’s media landscape and affected reporting about issues such as Germany’s failed energy policy, international populist movements, COVID-19, climate change, migration or Islamism.
Germany’s public broadcasters—ARD, ZDF, and Deutschlandfunk—deserve particular scrutiny. These networks command an enormous €9 billion annual budget through mandatory license fees, yet face growing public scepticism. Despite ARD’s self-proclaimed status as the “epitome of credibility and expertise,” a 2023 INSA survey revealed that less than half of Germans trust the network. Among young adults aged 18-29, trust plummets to just one-third.
Alexander Teske, a former ARD planning editor, provides troubling insights in his recent book. He describes how reporters routinely filter stories through ideological lenses, particularly in coverage of demonstrations and anti-government protests in former East Germany. Instead of balanced reporting, journalists often cherry-pick the most inflammatory statements. Fear of missteps has led many newsrooms to simply echo each other’s coverage rather than conduct independent journalism.
In response to these constraints, alternative media platforms have emerged and gained popularity despite facing pressure through advertising boycotts and legal threats—reflecting a growing public demand for more open debate
Whether a new government abolishes Germany’s repressive anti-free speech laws, and resists the temptation to attempt to stigmatise critics, will serve as a touchstone of its genuine commitment to democracy in Germany.
READ NEXT
The UK’s Shotgun Clampdown Is Indicative of Much More
Trump, Putin, Zelensky, and the Geopolitics of Resources
Erasmus: How Brussels ‘Deconstructs’ European Values