10 May 2021

“Censorship” is back How a free society is giving up freedom by Robert Seidel The brief explosive confrontation between the German population in order to participate in this Russian media group “Russia Today Deutschland” war.2 (RT DE) and German Foreign Minister Heiko Mass (SPD) in mid-March highlighted the alarming state … and Brussels of press freedom in the EU, especially in Germany. Subsequently, freedom of expression has been Behind this controversy lies the creeping introduc‐ systematically heckled implenting the EU struc‐ tion of a dictatorship of opinion. ture. On 19 April 2007, the Justice Ministers of the EU member states agreed that racism, anti- Selecting and judging information by yourself Semitism and genocide denial were criminal of‐ The goal is not to drive the Russian media group fences. The use of a term such as “racism” can out of Germany by means of an outright ban, but be and is now being broadened or reinterpreted through financial isolation. No other bank should according to political intent and used as a polit‐ open an account for RT after its account at Com‐ ical weapon. What might have looked reason‐ merzbank was shut down.1 able to some, at first, is now a leverage for turn‐ In addition to RT, many local, independent and ing political positions into criminal offences. At investigative journalists, such asBernd Reit‐ the time, urgent warnings had been issued about schuster orKen Jebsen,who work in the internet, the consequences we are currently experien‐ find their lives made increasingly difficult. What cing.3 is the reason for this? Are German citizens no longer able to select and judge information by Stasi experience desirable themselves? Is the government afraid of certain Private or state-sponsored organisations, such kinds of information? These questions aim at as theAmadeu Antonio Stiftung4 – and therefore the very heart of any free society. not the judiciary – are now responsible for pro‐ secuting actual or alleged racist or anti-Semitic Top down: censorship comes via NATO... statements in Germany. The spectrum has also The TV news coverage of the 1999 Kosovo war been broadened to include so-called “hate can be described as a grave sin in German media speech”. By dragging people and organisations history. While the war, contrary to international into the blur of groups considered “radical” or ex‐ law, was increasingly being criticized in public pressing “unsavory” ideas in the future, this and losing popular support, the official spokes‐ foundation criminalizes them. In this way, the man of the Bundeswehr was replaced byJamie foundation functions as a kind of primary “cen‐ Shea,a media specialist sent by NATO. From sorship authority”. Among others, is then on, the information was not only worthless one of its clients. This American company then in terms of content, but also highly manipulative. deletes the pages that are reprimanded by the In the early 2000s, critical reporting was still tol‐ foundation. erated in the public media. In 2001, for example, Interestingly enough, the Amadeu Foundation the Westdeutsche Rundfunk (WDR) broadcasted is headed by a person who was once an unoffi‐ the report “It all started with a lie”, detailing how cial collaborator of the Stasi.5 So, it seems, this leading politicians systematically deceived the lady not only has the necessary know-how, but she also enjoys the appropriate political protec‐ tion today.6 “The press must have the freedom to say everything, EU censorship authority so that some people don't have the freedom On the grounds that foreign powers (read: Rus‐ to do everything.” Alain Peyrefitte 1925–1999 sia, ) influence and affect civil societies through the media, further directives have been issued at EU level instructing governments to ban effect of censoring a message in an obscure certain news and press agencies or media way, with the operators of the major social me‐ portals. Two years ago, journalist and author dia thus ensuring that it is less widely distrib‐ Hannes Hofbauer already described the con‐ uted. This is a fairly effective form of censor‐ sequences we are seeing now: “Anyone who ship.”10 reads the 'Report on the implementation of the ac‐ tion plan against ' presented by the The benefit of the doubt against the defendant European Commission on 14 June 2019 will be In recent years, it has been possible to observe appalled to discover that the establishing of an how arbitrarily “corrections” have been made.11 EU-wide censorship authority is already largely It is only through a tedious legal process that in‐ completed. Soon, according to the still some‐ ternet forum operators, accused of having pub‐ what hidden message, the dissemination of in‐ lished “inappropriate” messages, can defend formation that Brussels deems false and danger‐ themselves. This is a reversal of the principles ous will be punishable by sanctions up to an ac‐ of the rule of law: now it is up to the accused to count freeze and a travel ban.”7 prove his innocence.12 The fact that George Soros' institutions and other large private Facebook silences critics foundations are amongCorrectiv's backers In order to cover the entire web, internet plat‐ does not increase confidence in this “organisa‐ form operators have already been forced since tion”.13 2018 to exercise censorship themselves via the For some internet companies now involved in German Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG= the media or in politics, it is also convenient to Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz): “The law ob‐ be able to eliminate unwelcome competitors liges private social networks with more than two themselves, as was seen, for example, with the million users to remove or block access to 'obvi‐ closure of the news platform Parler in the ously ilicit content' within 24 hours of receiving United States. From one minute to the next, a complaint. For 'illicit contents', the deadline is 20 million users were arbitrarily, i.e. without a one week. If platforms such as Facebook, You‐ court decision, cut off by Google, Apple and Tube, Instagram, and Snapchat fail to Amazon.14 comply with the regulations, they face hor‐ rendous fines of up to 50 million euros.“8 For “Voluntary” self-regulation their part, Facebook, Google, etc. now hire In Germany, the media industry now carries out private companies that claim to be able to distin‐ direct censorship. The publishers' and journal‐ guish between “correct" and “incorrect” (read: “il‐ ists' associations allow themselves to be instru‐ licit”) opinions. mental in supporting and encouraging censor‐ ship through “voluntary self-regulation criteria” Mandated censors or “press codes”. Their originally reasonable One of them is the organisationCorrectiv. This guidelines, have been adapted to the spirit of the organisation presents itself as follows: “Tar‐ times, i.e. to the current guidelines of the state. geted disinformation is used to divide our soci‐ Some journalists or media outlets are now ety, to disseminate hatred or to do business threatened with exclusion if they do not adhere dealings. One-sided or false information creates to these strict guidelines. distorted world views.Correctiv.Faktencheck op‐ It is evident that small, unwanted competit‐ poses this and denounces disinformation, ru‐ ors can also be harassed in this way. Thus, the mours and half-truths on a daily basis.”9 Other competitive pressure that small, independent authors, such asNorbert Häring,see things dif‐ online platforms (such asKenFM, Reitschuster) ferently: “[...] whatCorrectiv does is of a com‐ exert on the large, established media is very pletely different, sinister nature. Operators of so‐ likely to play a role that should not be underes‐ cial media platforms, especially Facebook, are timated.15 under pressure from those in power to suppress critical opinions and alternative facts.Correctiv censorship gets paid by Facebook to put a negative stamp The fact that the German public media institu‐ on unwanted posts. This negative stamp has the tions (ARD, ZDF) can no longer be critical is

2/4 hardly a secret today but nevertheless, worth problematic nature of the new interstate media mentioning here. Until the early 2000s, they treaty.21 could allowed to produce critical contributions, but then they came under increasing pressure State-sponsored fake news from “political correctness”.16 Since director‐ In the meantime, the EU has started to combat ships and finances are politically allocated, this inappropriate – i.e. inconvenient – opinions also can be easily explained. However, it becomes with the help of secret services or “associations problematic when the “new” journalistic stand‐ close to governments”, and to actively intervene ards of the public media authority are declared in the media sector. generally valid. Then, freedom of opinion is Because of the critical coverage of the Ukrain‐ turned upside down, as it is limited to the “play‐ ian crisis by some alternative media,22 theEUfelt ing field” defined by the state.17 compelled to actively intervene in the media Recently, there is even a danger that public sphere. German writer and lawyerWolfgang media institutions will turn into state-controlled Bittner writes: “The European External Action psychosocial actors. Journalist Alexander Service does not hesitate to spread fake news Wendt (“Publico”) describes the proposals of on a large scale when it comes to Russia. In MDR [Mitteldeutscher Rundfunk] directorKarola 2016, a special unit called the East StratCom Wille to launch a “network for the common Task Force (Strategic Communications Team good”. Public media institutions would not only East) was created to deal with 'large-scale or‐ select or sanction certain opinions on this basis, ganised propaganda' by Russian authorities in but would also actively exert a mass psycholo‐ EU countries. European Commission experts are gical influence on society.18 certain that Moscow's goal is to destabilize the Direct state funding of small “independent” European Union and engage in 'hybrid warfare' private media is also absurd if they do not have using targeted disinformation and uncer‐ a guarantee of real independence in content, as tainty.”23 practiced today.19 “Institute for statecraft‘s integrity” New interstate media treaty It is not surprising, then, that the cyber entities The situation is similar with the media authorit‐ that surround state intelligence services are in‐ ies in the Länder. As “non-governmental” institu‐ volved in government censorship efforts. As tions, they have always been concerned with is‐ part of a public relations campaign on vaccina‐ suing broadcasting licences and ensuring the tions, journalistWhitney Webb describes the protection of minors. However, because of their various intelligence agencies such as the UK's proximity to the government, they are also an ex‐ “Institute for Statecraft's Integrity” or the CIA- tension of government policy. affiliated agencies that have recently been de‐ The situation has seriously worsened as a ployed on the internet.24 result of the new interstate media treaty (Medi‐ enstaatsvertrag MStV) dated 7 November 2020. No freedom without freedom of press Shortly thereafter, in March 2021, authorities in One of the marks and characteristics of free charge of the medias in the Länder demanded Western societies and democratic states in gen‐ that 13 independent online media adhere to eral is the freedom of expression and, linked to “journalistic rules”.20 This written request was it, the freedom of the press. They remain an ex‐ singularly lacking in concrete references to indi‐ istential foundation of every democracy, be‐ vidual “offences”. The only purpose was, obvi‐ cause without them, no democratic process of ously, to put the portals under public pressure free opinion formation is possible. It is precisely and to discredit them in general. In doing so, the these preconditions that are highly threatened media institutions explicitly referred to the new today. It is a warning sign when individual public‐ interstate media treaty. Through Google, Face‐ ations, such as the independent websiteRu‐ book and YouTube, they now have the possibility bikon, already take the precaution of planning to ban certain portals on the internet. The Ger‐ their future publication from exile.25 man journalistTilo Gräser describes these cur‐ In infosperber.ch,the Swiss journalistRainer rent developments in detail and highlights the Stadler reminds us of the foundations of any

3/4 democratic state: “In this sense, liberal states 13 Wolfgang Effenberger:https://kenfm.de/correctiv-die- selbsternannten-wahrheitsrichter on 19 May 2020 should use the strength of the Enlightenment tradition and trust mature consumers to be able 14 Glenn Greenwald:https://www.rubikon.news/artikel/die- digitalen-supermachte?fbclid=IwAR1BYdq_ZqWx‐ to distinguish credible from unreliable informa‐ W_HL_DTJ4IBgC3AXTrR5eHmTlLhPeTXeLmziJFNhs‐ tion – regardless of the platforms on which it is ZioDkM on 2 February 2021 26 found.” 15 Thilo Gräser:https://multipolar-magazin.de/artikel/neue- (Transla�on “Swiss Standpoint”) zensurbehorde on 22 March 2021 1 RTDE:https://de.rt.com/inland/114540-umgang-mit-rt-in- 16 cf. Hermann, Eva. «Das Medienkartell. Wie wir täglich deutschland-moskaubring-harte-gegenmaßnahmen-ge‐ getäuscht werden». [The media cartel. How we are de‐ gen-deutschen-medien-ins-spiel on17March 2021 and ceived daily]. Rottenburg 2012 Ulrich Heyden: https://www.nachdenkseiten.de/ 17 Thilo Gräser:https://multipolar-magazin.de/artikel/neue- ?p=71261 on 5 April 2021 zensurbehordeon 22 March 2021 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtkQYRlXMNU 18 Alexander Wendt: https://www.publicomag.com/ (download from 26 March 2021), first broadcast WDR 2021/03/nur-ein-vorschlag-nicht-wahr-aber-wer-will-ihn- on 8 Febuary 2001 ablehnen/ on 12 March 2021 3 For example, Hofbauer, Hannes. «Verordnete Wahrheit, 19 Alexander Wendt: https://www.publicomag.com/ bestrafte Gesinnung. Rechtsprechung als politisches In‐ 2021/03/nur-ein-vorschlag-nicht-wahr-aber-wer-will-ihn- strument». Pro Media Verlag, Vienne 2011. ablehnen on 12 March 2021 4 Self-representation:https://www.amadeu-antonio-stif‐ 20 Thilo Gräser:https://multipolar-magazin.de/artikel/neue- tung.de/ueber-uns on 22 March 2021 zensurbehorde on 22 February 2021 5 Vera Lengsfeld: https://vera-lengsfeld.de/2019/02/13/ 21 ibid. anetta-kahane-alias-im-victoria-die-perfekte-weichzeich‐ nerin-in-eigener-sache on 13 February 2019 22 Ulrich Heyden: https://www.nachdenkseiten.de/ ?p=71261 on 5 April 2021 6 Hubertus Knabe:https://hubertus-knabe.de/der-fall-ka‐ hane on 4 July 2019 23 Cf. Bittner, Wolfgang. «Die Eroberung Europas durch die USA» [The conquest of Europe by the USA], 7 Hannes Hofbauer:https://www.nachdenkseiten.de/ p. 168s., as well as in the Göttinger Tageblatt on 24 Fe‐ ?p=52733 bruary 2016, p. 2. 8 Johannes Stern: https://www.wsws.org/de/articles/ Cf. also Marcus Klöckner: https://www.heise.de/tp/feature‐ 2018/01/03/netz-j03.html on 3 January 2018 s/Unabhaengige-Medien-und-Medienvertreter-im-Dienste- 9 Self-representation of Correctiv:https://correctiv.org/ des-Strategischen-Kommunikationsteams-Ost- faktencheck on 22 March 2021 3376363.html on 30 October 2015 10 Norbert Häring:https://norberthaering.de/medienversa‐ 24 Withney Webb:https://www.rubikon.news/artikel/propa‐ gen/correctiv-anti-journalisten on 30 May 2020 gandakrieg-fur-big-pharma on 24 November 2020 11 Roger Letsch: https://www.achgut.com/artikel/correctiv‐ 25 Jens Wernicke:https://www.rubikon.news/artikel/die-zu‐ _die_faktenchecker_vom_dienst on 23 December 2019 kunft-beginnt on 27 March 2021 12 Ken Jebsen:https://kenfm.de/kenfm-verlaesst-berlin on 26 Rainer Stadler: https://www.infosperber.ch/medien/sto‐ 10.27.2020 erfaktor-staatsmedien on 28 March 2021

4/4