https://www.flickr.com/people/39453974@N04/Flickr / Wikimedia Commons (CC BY 2.0)
Under the innocuous-looking sub-heading titled “Strengthening media diversity — safeguarding freedom of opinion,” the new German coalition contract conceals what George Orwell would recognize as classic doublespeak. The section “Dealing with disinformation” reads:
“Targeted influence on elections and by now commonplace disinformation and fake news are serious threats to our democracy, its institutions and social cohesion. The deliberate dissemination of false factual claims is not covered by freedom of expression. That is why the media supervisory authority, which is independent of the state, must be able to take action against the manipulation of information, hate-mongering and agitation while safeguarding freedom of expression—on the basis of clear legal requirements … We will ensure that online platforms fulfil their obligations with regard to transparency and cooperation with the supervisory authority.”
This is an Orwellian contradiction at its finest. Though implementation details remain unclear, the trajectory is alarming: a government establishing a supposedly “independent” institution that will define truth versus lies—essentially a Ministry of Truth—all packaged as necessary for protecting democracy!
Free speech already under assault
The German establishment has already demonstrated its propensity to crush free expression. As the coalition partners were drafting their contract, the editor-in-chief of the AfD-affiliated Deutschland Kurier received a seven-month suspended prison sentence merely for sharing a satirical meme showing Interior Minister Nancy Faeser holding a sign reading “I hate freedom of speech.”
The case exemplifies the fatal flaw in policing “fake news.” Yes, the image was fabricated, but didn’t it capture a fundamental truth? Faeser champions laws restricting expression (like Section 188 of the German penal code penalizing criticism of politicians.) As Turkish-German journalist Denis Yücel—a man who himself was imprisoned in Turkey for speech crimes— aptly noted, by failing to condemn this verdict, Faeser effectively confirms she DOES hate free expression.
Truth already sacrificed on the altar of ideology
The coalition’s plans emerge at a time when the boundary between truth and falsehood is already being dangerously blurred in many instances—and certainly not only by far-right contrarians, but by the establishment itself. The Self-Determination Act, which the coalition plans to maintain, allows Germans as young as 14 to legally change their gender. The law threatens fines up to €10,000 for anyone “disclosing” someone’s original identity. The absurd result? German media for example now refer to a biological male who identifies as a woman—an immigrant from South Africa—accused of brutally murdering a Syrian security officer exclusively with female pronouns and nouns, prioritizing subjective identity over objective reality.
The “fact-checkers” who suppress facts
Government-funded “fact-checkers” have repeatedly suppressed inconvenient truths. The handling of the COVID-19 crisis is a case in point. Some weeks ago, mainstream newspapers revealed that German intelligence services concluded in 2020 that the virus likely originated from a Wuhan laboratory—information shared with then-Chancellor Merkel’s government. Yet the government kept the study which it had commissioned, secret. Instead, this “lab leak theory” was publicly branded a conspiracy theory. Professor Roland Wiesendanger, a distinguished physicist who independently reached similar conclusions, faced public defamation by state-funded fact-checkers. ARD proclaimed there was “Hardly any evidence for lab theory,” while Deutsche Welle ‘s fact checkers questioned whether his work even qualified as a “study.” Wiesendanger faced not just professional smears but legal charges of defamation.
The nature of many fact checkers was also highlighted in a case involving the journalist Roland Tichy, who ultimately prevailed in court against the state-sponsored Correctiv research organization. Tichy’s magazine, Tichys Einblick, had published an article about an open letter to UN Secretary-General António Guterres under the headline ‘500 scientists declare: “There is no climate emergency”‘. After the post was shared on Facebook, the fact-checkers immediately intervened, adding the following note to the post: “No: It’s not ‘500 scientists’: claims partly false.”
The court correctly ruled that in “the competition of opinions, there is no objective standard for categorizing ‘right’ and ‘wrong’.” Tichy’s lawyer, Joachim Steinhöfel, rightly pointed out that determining truth or falsehood should remain within the political discourse. It should not be arbitrated by government proxies.
Censorship as admission of failure
The coalition agreement reveals that traditional liberalism and an open exchange of ideas no longer suit the government’s agenda. Since existing fact-checkers have failed to redirect political discourse toward the government line, new censorship laws are deemed necessary.
Even this coalition cannot seriously believe such measures will restore public trust. Still reeling from devastating election results while populist movements gain momentum, they’re resorting to increasingly authoritarian methods. Unable to convince voters through legitimate debate, they’re choosing to suppress dissent instead. This coalition contract, in demanding more censorship, doesn’t protect democracy—it insults voters’ fundamental sense of freedom and justice.