United States' human rights assessment spurned by Berlin
In a recent report, the U.S. Department of State has raised concerns about the German government's approach to freedom of speech and the handling of anti-Semitic incidents. The report alleges restricted freedom of speech in Germany, primarily due to laws that criminalize certain types of speech, such as incitement of racial hatred, endorsement of Nazism, and extremist expressions.
The report, however, may not fully represent the current state of anti-Semitic incidents and their origins in Germany. This is because the U.S. report does not account for the new category "Other assignment" for anti-Semitic offenses with unclear backgrounds, as introduced by the Federal Criminal Office (BKA) since 2024. According to the BKA, since the beginning of 2024, they have been recording anti-Semitic offenses for which the phenomenon area cannot be clearly determined in this new category.
The German government has rejected the report's allegations, with Steffen Meyer, deputy government spokesman in Berlin, emphasizing that there is no censorship in Germany. Jens Spahn, chairman of the Union faction (CDU), also rejected accusations from Washington regarding censorship in Germany.
The U.S. report criticizes an increase in anti-Semitic incidents in Germany. According to BKA statistics, 3,016 of the 6,236 anti-Semitic crimes last year were committed by suspected right-wing perpetrators. However, the assessment of the U.S. government regarding the origin of anti-Semitic acts is disputed and refers to the immigration of people from Syria, Afghanistan, and Turkey to Germany.
The report speaks of censorship because internet platforms are required to delete hate messages in Germany. The Federal Ministry of Digital Affairs stated that regulations requiring platforms to delete hate messages "cannot be part of a deal." From the right-wing political spectrum in the U.S., it has long been claimed that the European approach against hate speech amounts to censorship.
The U.S. report also connects these speech restrictions to broader human rights concerns, such as a rise in antisemitic violence and the enforcement of laws against extremist content, framing these as "significant human rights issues." German officials and the press reacted with indignation, emphasizing Germany’s commitment to freedom of expression and disputing the characterization of these laws as freedom restrictions.
The U.S. report is not the first to criticize Germany's approach to freedom of speech. From the right-wing political spectrum in the U.S., it has long been claimed that the European approach against hate speech amounts to censorship. Vance, the current Vice President, during his election campaign, threatened to withdraw U.S. support for NATO if the Europeans took action against content on the online platform of tech billionaire Elon Musk.
In short, the discrepancy arises because Germany balances freedom of speech with legal prohibitions against hate speech and extremism, while the U.S. view, reflecting broader free speech norms, criticizes these legal measures as undue constraints on speech. The U.S. government's human rights reports describe the situation in numerous countries, and according to the latest report, the situation in Germany has deteriorated. The German government views such limits as necessary to prevent hate speech and protect minorities, whereas the U.S. perceives these restrictions as significant limitations on free speech rights, especially compared to U.S. free speech traditions.
- The U.S. human rights reports, such as the recent one, often criticize Germany's policy-and-legislation related to freedom of speech due to its approach against hate speech and extremism, which they perceive as censorship.
- The ongoing debate in politics between the two countries involves concerns about the handling of anti-Semitic incidents, with the U.S. report highlighting general-news issues like the enforcement of laws against extremist content and the rise in antisemitic violence, while German officials assert their commitment to freedom of expression and dispute these characterizations as freedom restrictions.
