Free Speech Emergency: how do we fight back?

This session is part of Battle of Ideas Berlin 2026.

Germans increasingly believe that exercising restraint in what we say is healthy. Almost half of respondents to a recent survey said it is ‘better to be cautious’ about sharing political opinions. A similar proportion support restrictions on controversial or provocative statements such as ‘Soldiers are murderers’ or ‘Women belong in the kitchen’.

Worryingly, what is framed as responsible self-censorship – ‘think before you speak’ – is reinforced by harsh laws and the threat of real penalties. Take Section 188 of the Criminal Code, in force since 2021 and widely known as the ‘law against insulting politicians’. In 2025 alone, thousands of complaints were filed against ordinary citizens for crudely criticising politicians. At EU level, new instruments such as the Digital Services Act introduce ‘trusted flaggers’ – designated bodies that screen online speech for content deemed hateful. In practice, this disproportionately affects people criticising Europe’s migration policy or speaking critically about Islam.

Is this pressure coming only ‘from above’, or is there also a deeper, socially driven struggle over speech? Calls for censorship and bans have come from many directions – public intellectuals, NGOs and student groups – and target speakers branded transphobic, Islamophobic, Zionist, antisemitic or simply ‘populist’. The Brandmauer (‘firewall’) is a case in point. Originally a matter of party politics – mainstream parties refusing to cooperate with the AfD – it has increasingly been invoked to exclude AfD-affiliated speakers from panels at universities, schools, private companies and institutions, such as when the Association of Family Entrepreneurs withdrew an invitation to AfD representatives for a ‘Parliamentary Evening’.

But if the populist right and conservatives have been targeted by cancel culture and speech restrictions, are they not equally guilty of seeking to restrict speech? Legal scholar Ralf Michaels, who publicly defended anti-AfD protesters in Erfurt, received death threats. AfD officials have filed a criminal defamation complaint demanding action against Chancellor Merz, who alleged that AfD support for ‘remigration’ amounted to an embrace of ‘ethnic cleansing based on origin and skin colour’. If statements by politicians are to be protected from legal action, surely that protection should apply consistently?

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict presents more difficult questions: where should the red lines around political speech lie? UN experts say Germany is ‘criminalising, punishing, and suppressing’ legitimate Palestinian solidarity activism, including calls to halt arms exports, end genocide and recognise the State of Palestine. Meanwhile, parliament is pressing for changes to Section 130, which covers incitement to hatred and Holocaust denial, to criminalise speech denying Israel’s right to exist, with offenders potentially facing fines or imprisonment. Is this a case of free speech for me, but not for thee’? Or is Boris Rhein, Minister-President of Hesse, correct to say: “Those who deny Israel’s right to exist are attacking Jewish life. Those who attack Jewish life are attacking our free and democratic order.”

What is driving Germany’s free-speech crisis? Is it primarily top-down, or are broader social pressures at work? Is every restriction simply censorship by another name, or are there legitimate red lines that should never be crossed? Where should the boundaries lie around insult, defamation and slander? And to defend free expression, do we need to repeal inappropriate criminal laws, introduce stronger protections for speech, or rebuild a culture confident enough to tolerate disagreement?