Note: this post was originally posted in c/privacy@lemmy.ml, but got removed by a moderator, because it was apparently “off-topic” in “A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.”
The US-based nonprofit Privacy Guides recently covered in their podcast “This Week in Privacy“ episode 64 an article titled “Inside the dystopian world of Germany’s free speech crackdown” from UK-based publisher The Telegraph. The co-host (Nate) read off the notes while covering the story and said the original article is "definitely worth a read. Lots of good stuff in there.”
Disclaimer: This fact-check has been written on a best-effort basis with the time and resources available to me. I would have liked to dig deeper into the sources I’ve linked, the claims made, and the original article, but my current circumstances don’t allow for such a large-scale investigation. In contrast to Privacy Guides, which is funded by many supporters, Voxel is a single person who tries his best to educate people about data protection and cybersecurity and to fight for a better future with no funding whatsoever. If you find something that is inaccurate, please feel free to kindly correct me in the comments, I will adjust it ASAP.
I’ll cover the claims made in the episode and debunk them chronologically.
The first claim is about Rainer Zitelmann who, according to them, had been accused of violating § 86a StGB, which bans the display of Nazi symbols, slogans, and imagery, and could now face three years in prison if found guilty. He found out the offending social media post was a meme about Adolf Hitler, but it was one in which he compared the Nazi dictator and his invasion of Czechoslovakia to Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. I found news coverage from other sources that paints a similar picture, but was unable to independently verify R. Zitelmann’s claims.
All following quotes are by Nate from Privacy Guides (source) if not marked otherwise.
So basically, like, I’m saying Hitler is bad. Why is this? Yeah.
Objectively misrepresents the case and makes it seem as if Germany would fight negative speech about Hitler.
(…) is one of thousands of Germans who have been threatened with fines or prison sentences for social media posts that fall afoul of the country’s political speech laws, which are unusually stringent for an EU member state.
Neither Privacy Guides nor the original article provides a source for this data. I was unable to find information about this.
They went on to cover the “Schwachkopf” (can be roughly translated as “weak head” in the cognitive/intellectual sense) case. They claim that the person who called Robert Habeck “Schwachkopf” got his home “raided.” This is false; the supposed raid was actually a search warrant to seize evidence. The accused voluntarily handed over the tablet used in the crime to officers; consequently, further measures were waived, not least for reasons of proportionality. So no actual home search was conducted.
In the case of the “Lügenfritz” (can be roughly translated to “lying Fritz”) insult, Nate says that the accused was fined two thousand euros. This is theoretically false. The court issued a fine of 30 days’ income. I was unable to find source that provides information on how much the accused earned. The accused didn’t object the ruling.
The number of investigations under Section 86a, the Nazi symbol ban that Dr. Z was investigated for has more than doubled over the past decade according to official police statistics. Investigations into the political insult law also reached a record level in 2025.
Neither Privacy Guides nor the original article provides a source for this data. I was unable to find information about this.
In one recent case, a pensioner was investigated under Section 188 for posting Pinocchio is coming on Facebook after he learned that Frederick Mertz, the chancellor, was visiting his hometown.
This is true, but the investigations were closed, “because this is a form of criticism of power covered by freedom of expression and is therefore permissible“ (automated translation). The original article and Nate fail to mention that.
In 2021, police raided a man’s apartment in Hamburg after he told a senator, you’re such a d***.
That is partially true; his apartment was searched. I don’t think this is equal to being “raided,” but the original article, as well as Nate, fail to mention that the apartment search was deemed illegal by the court.
The surge in cases is so vast that the U.N. has launched an investigation into free speech violations in Germany, a step typically reserved for dictatorships and banana republics. (…) So and Germany needs to figure out what they’re doing if they’re getting investigated by the UN. I think that’s pretty wild.
This is completely false. This misinformation was taken from the original article, which provides no source whatsoever. What is true, but wasn’t mentioned in the episode, is that the United Nations Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, Ms. Irene Khan, undertook an official country visit to Germany to examine, in the spirit of cooperation and dialogue, the situation of the rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the country. But it’s important to highlight that (emphasis added):
Special Rapporteurs/Independent Experts/Working Groups are independent human rights experts appointed by the United Nations Human Rights Council. Together, these experts are referred to as the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council. Special Procedures experts work on a voluntary basis; they are not UN staff and do not receive a salary for their work. While the UN Human Rights office acts as the secretariat for Special Procedures, the experts serve in their individual capacity and are independent from any government or organization, including OHCHR and the UN. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the UN or OHCHR.
German free speech activists on the left and right, as well as the Trump administration, have also raised the alarm, and there are growing calls from some of the country’s stricter laws to be scrapped.
No sources provided, but it wouldn’t surprise me if there are some people who do. I can’t comment on the Trump administration.
The fur bears some similarities to the speech debate in Britain, where citizens have a knock on the door from police over opinions posted online.
I believe this is an extreme exaggeration and misrepresentation of the current situation based on the data provided.
Conclusion: Privacy Guides seemingly did not verify the integrity of the article and the information they took from it and shared in their podcast. They spread lots of misinformation about Germany’s current status, left out important information, and even claimed that the UN would be investigating Germany for free speech violations.
My opinion: In addition to the conclusion above, I would like to point out that the article seems to be highly politically motivated and appears to manipulate readers through disinformation into specific beliefs; that Privacy Guides used the article without seemingly noticing this highly political intention behind it, and did not verify the integrity of the information provided, is very concerning. My appeal to Privacy Guides would be: accuracy over quantity. Covering more articles at the cost of the integrity of the information provided causes a lot of harm and allows misinformation to spread even further than it otherwise would. Privacy Guides also makes it very hard to investigate and check the integrity of the sources yourself, as they’re not provided or linked in the show notes of the podcast, and you have to manually go to their website, search for the blog entry for the podcast, and find the sources there; I believe putting the sources directly in the show notes allows for a healthier information flow and empowers listeners to investigate themselves.
Thanks for the dive into that. We seem to all mutually accept that stories may not be told with complete factuality or nonbias in the modern day, whereby metrics such as website traffic is how revenue is often generated. Furthermore, if a political bias is present in a source, we all seem to understand that it may undermine the factuality. I say this to put forth that while we may agree with sentiments of pro-privacy topics, our sources are not inherently better than sources opposed to our beliefs, and that misinformation can appear anywhere, and not entirely due to malicious intent.
Thanks for being the fact-checker here.
I appreciate the comment, thank you!
Like usual german on the fediverse keep giving themselves a bad image. I only need to see german facist policies smacking a woman face in protests to know that germany is a facist state.
