Zeit magazine cancels Ai Weiwei: Just one example of dwindling freedom of expression
The Chinese artist, human rights activist , and exile Ai Weiwei has a difficult relationship with Germany, that much is known. In 2019, he accused Germans of xenophobia anda Nazi mentality and moved from Berlin, where he had lived and worked for five years, to Cambridge, England. Nevertheless, he did not give up his residence in the German capital. At the end of July, he was asked by the Hamburg-based Zeit magazine to write 15 to 20 short thoughts on the topic "What I wish I had known about Germany earlier" for a column.
Among his answers: A society that values obedience without questioning authority is destined to become corrupt. When conversation becomes avoidance, when topics are not allowed to be discussed, we are already living under the silent logic of authoritarianism. When the majority believes they live in a free society, this is often a sign that the society is not free.
Unjust judgment or a ruthless reflection? Zeit magazine apparently didn't want to burden its readers with the artist's answers and assigned the column to someone else. Asked about the reasons for the decision, a publishing spokesperson replied: "This is a process that can happen in all editorial offices." Ai Weiwei's thoughts were printed in the August issue of Weltbühne, published by the Berlin publishing house.
International criticism of freedom of expression in GermanyThe episode, both Ai's theses and the veto by Zeit magazine, confirms a trend that has been ongoing for years. Internationally, criticism of the real freedom of expression in German society is growing; domestically, there is a growing sense of a narrowing corridor of socially acceptable opinions that are positively sanctioned by those in power in politics, the media, and culture.
Since 1953, the Allensbach Institute for Public Opinion Research has been conducting a survey: Is it possible to freely express one's opinion in Germany—or should one be more cautious? In 2023, only 40 percent answered yes to the initial question—the lowest rate ever. As recently as the early 1990s, the yes response rate was over 80 percent.
The legal framework has barely changed over the decades. Political scientist Richard Traunmüller of the University of Mannheim sees the problem not in legal terms, but in the state of democracy. Freedom of expression and democracy are essentially congruent, he says. If freedom of expression is called into question, the same applies to democracy.
Read the full interview with Ai Weiwei here:Traunmüller has a kind of formula at hand: "You have to imagine it like this: When is it advantageous to speak out? When the probability that the statements will be sanctioned is low, and when the sanctions themselves entail low costs." Business economists call this opportunity cost – what is more economically sensible: expressing one's opinion or keeping it to oneself? According to the Allensbach survey, the calculation has shifted over the past 50 years. More than half of those surveyed today believe that remaining silent is significantly cheaper.
The political and media establishment defends the status quo. Just recently, after repeated criticism from the US regarding the state of freedom of expression in Germany, the leader of the CDU/CSU parliamentary group, Jens Spahn, stated: "Everyone can say what they think in Germany. It's a free country." Or the director and author Doris Dörrie – years ago on Deutschlandfunk, she described it as "particularly absurd that some people here complain about not being able to express their opinions, while at the same time expressing their opinions. That's so crazy and so stupid and so dumb, because we really still live in a country where we are truly allowed to express the opinions we have."
Divided perception? Indeed, there are limits to freedom of speech, objectively, legally, and in all countries. There are also differences among Western democracies. The limits are probably most extensive in the United States. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, passed in 1791, expressly prohibited Congress from restricting freedom of speech through legislation. This would make Article 5, Paragraph 2 of the German Basic Law impossible in the first place. It states, with reference to the freedom of speech and freedom of the press defined in Paragraph 1: "These rights are limited by the provisions of general laws, by legal provisions for the protection of minors, and by the right to personal honor."
Even in the United States, freedom of speech is not unlimited. This begins with suggestive or obscene expressions, hence the beeping on American TV. Slander and insults are also prohibited. A gray area exists in the area of hate speech, but the requirements for prohibition are strict. Thus, the dissemination of radical, even extremist, ideas in the United States is subject to freedom of speech – the only exceptions are calls for direct violence and the violation of the law, which, moreover, must be capable of actually provoking such actions.
It's not just the historical experiences of the 20th century that explain why Germany's approach to freedom of expression differs from the American approach. The United States, like Great Britain, is characterized by a culture of debate that has evolved over centuries; this is reflected in democratic reality. In comparison, Germany has traditionally been characterized by a culture of consensus; with a malicious tongue, one could claim that the ideal of a German democracy is that everyone voluntarily agrees.
It is not least this pressure for consensus that is leading to the narrowing of the spectrum of opinion in Germany in the 21st century, a narrowing perceived by many but disputed by others. Certain opinions, even those legally permissible, are to be excluded, socially ostracized, and negatively sanctioned as hate and incitement, contemptuous of humanity, or hostile to humanity.
You can also “not like”The classic slogan is "Hate is not an opinion." Hate, like love, antipathy, or sympathy, is a legitimate feeling that, like all feelings, also influences opinions. Everyone is also free to despise. No one is forced to love individuals or certain groups. One is certainly allowed to "dislike" them.
How such feelings are expressed is another matter. Do they cross the boundaries of insult, defamation, slander, or incitement? It becomes problematic when this examination is not carried out, when certain opinions that are undesirable in the media or politics are a priori and categorically disqualified as "hate and incitement," and the corresponding opinion leaders are denigrated and ostracized. Such behavior is particularly worrying when it is carried out by institutions that are close to the state or are perceived to be close to the state, such as public media.
Emeritus law professor Helmuth Schulze-Fielitz writes: “All attempts to exclude certain opinions on the basis of facts lead to the state’s judicial system of opinion, which is precisely what Article 5(1)(1) of the Basic Law (GG) is directed against.”
It's precisely this kind of state-directed opinion-mongering that's taking hold in Germany. "Wrong opinions" have long been defined, anchored in allegedly false factual claims that people no longer want to hear: certain statements about migration, coronavirus or climate policy, equality and gender, meat consumption, gender, the combustion engine, morality, democracy, and what not. Everyone knows what this is about.
Reactance more important than anti-democratic attitudesThe forced banishment of these "false opinions" from public discourse provokes what psychologists call reactance – according to Wikipedia, the "motivation to restore restricted or eliminated freedoms." When more and more people distance themselves from the state, reactance is usually the underlying cause, not an anti-democratic attitude. The catalyst for this is the premature renunciation by many media outlets and politicians of one of the most important freedoms: calling the truth by its name.
This is exemplified by the reporting on the appalling conditions in Duisburg-Marxloh. It is claimed that "poverty refugees from Romania and Bulgaria" are living there, exploited, in dilapidated properties. What is reduced to citizenship, however, has an ethnic-cultural dimension. Here, too: everyone knows what's at stake, but for many media outlets, the reality is taboo. It is primarily Sinti and Roma who vegetate in the most disreputable housing blocks. Whoever is to blame—the German state, German or non-German exploiters, the patriarchy, or the victims themselves—the journalists prefer to pretend that Duisburg-Marxloh is an exhibition of Romanian or Bulgarian living culture.
The shy and uptight people also hold sway at Zeit magazine. They bravely ask the world-famous Ai Weiwei what he wished he had known about Germany beforehand. When they read his answers, they get cold feet. So much truth, so much reality. You can't print that. Impossible.
Berliner-zeitung
