Why the fight to preserve freedom of expression is not a matter of Left or Right
A guest article and commentary by Maike Gosch calling for trans-partisan solidarity against free speech suppressions.
Some context:
I (ir)regularly publish guest posts, but this one is close to my heart. As many readers know, I was cancelled in the context of an attempt at speech suppression in 2018, and as a result of this I was debanked (twice), de-Paypalled, blacklisted from invitations by cultural institutions in Europe, and more. I have felt the effects of this to this day, as I embark for my very first institutional invitation in Europe since that time. It has taken 8 years for an institution to invite me. Before 2018, I gave 100 lectures per year and sat at panels with luminaries in the important cultural festivals taking place on the continent. So obviously, I feel a sense of solidarity with others who are subject to free speech suppression, which has reached unprecedented levels in Europe. It is in that context that I joined Network Affects, a pluralistic free speech defense organization founded by my friend Andrew Lowenthal (we had weekly lunches when we lived and worked in Chiang Mai), and I’m even on the board. Network Affects was behind the work done on the Twitter Files for example, documenting the Industrial-Censorship Complex in the Biden years. But you may have noticed that speech suppression is practiced just as much, if not more, by the other side. This makes free speech a trans-partisan topic.
Maike Gosch is a colleague in that organization, and I believe she makes that very important point, i.e. that defenders of democratic rights should rally across the political spectrum, in a potent way here.
This article was first published in German, in: https://www.nachdenkseiten.de/?p=153233 ; by NachDenkSeiten, an independent German political news and commentary website. This english version was sent to us by the author.
The article: ‘Living in a Paternalistic Democracy’
The case of German YouTuber Benjamin Berndt , who was issued a warning by the State Media Authority over an uncommented sentence in his interview with AfD politician Björn Höcke, has rightly sparked outrage.
However, the left-right divide immediately reared its head: on the one hand, many left-wing, Green and Social Democratic voices supported cracking down on ‘right-wing narratives’ and ‘fake news’; on the other, conservative and some alternative media outlets criticised the ‘left-wing’ state’s censorship apparatus.
In my view, this perspective obscures the real issue.
The debate surrounding the growing restrictions on freedom of expression is not, in fact, a culture war between the left and the right. It is playing out along a completely different axis of our political compass: the tension between democracy as the rule of the people, on the one hand, and authoritarian paternalism on the other. We must therefore introduce a different, vertical axis onto the coordinate system and think and argue beyond the terms ‘left’ and ‘right’ – which have, in any case, become very blurred by now.
For authoritarianism is neither necessarily left-wing nor necessarily right-wing. Both the right and the left can be authoritarian. We will not really make any progress if we remain stuck at the stage where the ‘right’ sees authoritarianism as nothing more than a ‘left-wing threat’, nor if more progressive (or self-identified as such) forces see a resurgence of ‘right-wing authoritarianism’. We will then remain trapped in a game of ping-pong and will not come any closer to resolving the situation.
The Enlightenment thinkers’ role reversal
Anyone observing the debate today will already have noticed a major shift. Just a few decades ago, it was often decidedly left-wing, liberal and system-critical forces that took to the barricades against attempts at state censorship, against the omnipotence of the secret services and against the state’s control of journalists. The old ‘Left’ instinctively distrusted the power of the state apparatus. Freedom of speech was fiercely defended against a conservative establishment perceived as authoritarian.
Today, sections of the progressive spectrum have made careers for themselves within state institutions and authorities, or regard them as welcome allies in the fight for the supposed greater good and against the ‘Right’. At the same time, they are forming alliances with the government, the secret services, NATO think tanks, NGOs, the police, public prosecutors’ offices and the mainstream media.
This is very clearly demonstrated by the recent investigations by WELT into the collaboration between the state media regulatory authorities and the Verfassungschutz (Office for the Protection of the Constitution) to identify and prosecute “hate speech” online.
Many now appear to have switched sides: moving away from the liberal, state-critical camp towards an authoritarian paternalism that uses administrative leverage and state coercion to narrow the scope of public debate. All in the name of a ‘resilient democracy’ and ostensibly to protect ‘our democracy’.
But democracy is not something that needs to be protected from the people. Nor is it something that needs to be taught to the people as if they were a horde of immature schoolchildren. This is a false basic assumption that has prevailed in Germany since the post-war period. Back then, in the immediate post-war period, it was historically justified and perhaps necessary – but today it is certainly no longer so.
Dissent amongst the population regarding government policy and direction is not something that can simply be branded as “undemocratic” or “misanthropic hate speech” and then suppressed. Dissent from the population should open up a discussion about better decisions and solutions. Indeed, it should serve as a corrective to government and other state actions. It is not government action that should correct the attitudes of the people, but rather, conversely, the attitudes and opinions of the people that should correct government action.
This is so self-evident that one is sometimes genuinely surprised that the smug decision-makers – and indeed many mainstream journalists – fail to be aware of it.
The illusion of one’s own infallibility
The prevailing attitude of those in power and many figures within the establishment, however, is based, on the contrary, on a shocking arrogance. When, for example, a state media authority issues a warning that an interviewer (whether a ‘journalist’ or not) must ‘correctly’ interpret and contextualise their guest’s statements, it elevates its own political viewpoint to the status of absolute, irrefutable truth. Admittedly, in the specific case of ‘Ben ungeskriptet’, it claims that this involves a false assertion of fact; yet even this falls short, for in such politicised debates about historical interpretations or court rulings on offences of speech some facts, opinions, assessments, etc. simply cannot be distinguished and defined with scientific precision.
Any suppression (or, to use the modern term, state ‘curation’) of opinions is always based on the unspoken assumption of one’s own infallibility. Anyone who presumes to control discourse in an authoritarian manner not only denies those with differing views the right to their own perspective, but also prevents errors in the prevailing opinion from being corrected at all. History is full of examples in which the establishment was absolutely convinced that it was in the right – and was, in fact, mistaken.
The childlike citizenry
Behind the expansion of the competence of the state media authorities lies a view of citizens as childlike and easily manipulated. They are not really regarded as responsible sovereigns, but as psychologically unstable vessels who must be protected from ‘wrong’ influences, educated and looked after like minors.
To say, ‘We must put this interview into context after the event, because otherwise the viewer runs the risk of believing the wrong thing’, is the consequence and expression of a deeply paternalistic attitude; and of the arrogance of a leadership that sees itself as the holder of absolute and irrefutable truth rather than as servants of the people.
And it turns the democratic ideal on its head: in fact, the state apparatus is there to serve the people. And the fundamental rights of freedom of the press and freedom of expression serve to protect them against state power, not to protect the state from its citizens. According to the logic of modern media watchdogs and their cheerleaders amongst the population, however, it is the state apparatus that controls and curates the formation of opinion in the minds of citizens.
The term ‘our democracy’ is, on the one hand, particularly ironic, but on the other hand also revealing: for democracy is no longer seen as the common cause of all, but as something claimed exclusively by only one part of the political landscape and one part of the population. This, however, contradicts the fundamental principle – the demos is, after all, indivisible. This ‘democracy’ no longer stands for the rule of the people, but for the rule of the current establishment and of sections of the population over the opinions of another section of the population, disguised as the protection of democracy.
And – as I said – this is not a problem of the right or the left. Traditionally ‘left-wing’ views such as anti-imperialism, resistance to colonialism, xenophobia, wars of aggression and war crimes are currently being suppressed just as much as what is regarded as more ‘right-wing’ views such as opposition to liberal migration policies and other topics. See the massive repression against the pro-Palestinian movement (e.g. the legal proceedings against the ‘Ulm 5’ resistance group targeting Israeli arms companies, or ‘Palestine Action’ in the UK) or against Hüseyin Doğru, who is a classic anti-imperialist and socialist left-wing journalist.
The authoritarian spiral
That is why the argument ‘Be careful about suppressing “right-wing” views, because soon the AfD will come to power and then “left-wing” views will be suppressed in exactly the same way’ is also too superficial and too utilitarian. The problem is not that ‘left-wing’ opinions will eventually come under attack – they already are – but that we are facing a new form of authoritarianism in Germany that is emerging and operating beyond the ‘left’ and ‘right’.
Time to grow up
A democracy worthy of the name must, and can, tolerate people expressing radical, false or unsympathetic opinions, and allow these to go uncommented in interviews. Even what counts as a ‘false’ fact is far less clear-cut than our modern ‘guardians of the truth’ claim; that is why, in press law disputes and other disputes over false claims, this is painstakingly established in court rather than at the discretion of officials. And the best remedy against the abuse of free speech is not punitive measures under media law, but counter-arguments, social debate, and sometimes public ridicule.
Anyone who seeks to impose a state-mandated context on interviews through pressure from the authorities is not engaging in media regulation – they are engaging in public indoctrination. A democracy that treats its citizens like immature children is not a mature democracy. It is time that we abandoned the concept of ‘supervised democracy’, which has dominated German political thinking since the end of the Second World War, and finally grew up.
Although I strongly resonate with and support the gist of Maike Gosch’s article, I find it lacking in a few essential respects.
First, protecting freedom of expression is fundamental to democracy, but this does not and should not mean that absolutely anything goes. I believe this distinction warrants attention in the context of the article, even if it is admittedly a complex and sensitive issue.
Second, near the beginning, the author writes: “But democracy is not something that needs to be protected from the people.” I find this to be a generalization that obscures the fact that “the people” also include agents who weaponize democratic fundamentals, such as freedom of expression, for the sole purpose of gaining power, often with agendas that undermine democracy or remain indifferent to democratic values. Today, and for some time now, we have seen the emergence of a communication culture expressly unfriendly to democratic values that endorses and perfects such weaponization methods, using state-of-the-art tools, powerful infrastructures, and, at times, almost unlimited funds. Such a culture becoming the new norm is a real danger to democracy everywhere, and it goes beyond political sides. For this reason, I think democracy does need intelligent and sensitive protection. To believe that democracy is invulnerable or infallible is simply naive.
Third, toward the end, the author writes: “And the best remedy against the abuse of free speech is not punitive measures under media law, but counter-arguments, social debate, and sometimes public ridicule.” Here again, there is an assumption that every position or expression, no matter how aggressive, toxic, or false, can be effectively met with counterarguments, rational conversation, and public debate (or even ridicule). This presupposes that agents are basically rational and interested in conversation, or at least willing to listen to perspectives and arguments other than their own. Yet many less well-meaning agents operate solely to capture a space of attention and control it.
Moreover, when dealing with complex issues, producing a single honest, fact-based, and coherent expression that meets the basic norms of human exchange is far more time- and energy-intensive than producing lies, incoherent claims, and simplistic statements aimed at the lowest common denominator of prospective listeners. Admittedly, bad players have an advantage in this respect. It is cheaper and often more effective to become one. We must not disregard it and find ways to change this unhealthy balance.
Maturity in democratic citizenship means recognizing that democracy is vulnerable precisely because it places freedom, including freedom of expression, at its foundation. Yet, as the old saying goes, with freedom comes responsibility. When freedom and responsibility are too often dissociated, we, as a democratic society, are in trouble. In this context, responsibility means carefully drawing lines of tolerance while maintaining and demanding a minimal, content-independent standard of discourse.
I believe that this is, in most part, an individual responsibility, one that must be cultivated through education. I also agree that the forms of institutional intervention criticized in the article may be counterproductive and cannot replace the deeper work of cultivating awareness, critical thinking, and responsible accountability for both what one expresses and what one chooses to pay attention to. But this does not eliminate the need to think seriously about how democracies can protect themselves, especially by encouraging and empowering a cultural ecosystem that is respectful and friendly towards democracy.