Legal scholar issues a warning. - The government imposes limitations on the right to speak openly.
Warns Degenhart: The Very Government is Reducing Freedom of Expression!
A survey conducted by Allensbach earlier this year discovered that barely half of Germans assert they can freely express their political thoughts. A former judge at the Saxony Constitutional Court penned a guest piece for the Frankfurt Allgemeine Zeitung in response, issuing a stark warning: "If the notion catches on in larger segments of society that people are restricted to particular opinion spaces, it could become a self-fulfilling prophecy." In other words, if individuals think they cannot voice their thoughts freely, they simply won't - hence hampering freedom of speech.
Confinement due to Fear of Social Backlash
According to Degenhart, people avoid expressing unpopular opinions due to the fear of social repercussions. He articulates that "few wish to be identified with 'populist' or even 'right-wing' viewpoints." This could result in people choosing not to voice their opinions - "if only to escape applause from unfavorable quarters."
Public Media Articles Perpetuate This Danger
Degenhart points a finger at public media as well. He argues that "leading media outlets such as public broadcasters and occasionally state-funded NGOs" dictate what is socially acceptable to say, particularly in areas of potential societal disputes.
In other words, because public broadcasters tend to represent a solitary viewpoint, especially on delicate matters, individuals with contrasting views feel concerned about publicly articulating their own perspectives.
Government Blame not Excluded
In his F.A.Z. article, constitutional law expert Degenhart also charges the government itself with limiting freedom of thought. According to him, opinions should not be mandated "from the top down" - i.e. from the state to the citizens. Instead, they should be shaped "from the bottom up" - i.e. from the citizens to the state. However, this principle seems to be "increasingly disregarded," as evidenced by "state publications and internet portals."
Degenhart also strongly condemns the controversial Democracy Promotion Act introduced by the traffic light coalition.
Although the legislation aims to financially support civil society initiatives combatting queer hostility, Degenhart makes it clear that: "The law is a means of guiding opinions in a specific direction and thus making the climate of opinion worse."
"State funding implies closeness to the state, fosters dependencies and the potential for state manipulation," he concludes. He feels that receiving funding from the state could "threaten fundamental freedoms and exacerbate the gradual erosion of freedom of thought."
Why? Because when popularly supported perspectives are promoted, the general diversity of opinion is curtailed.
Read also:
Source: symclub.org
