Freedom of expression: what exactly can not one say?

column

The game is old and transparent: An attention-seeking professional provocateur once again needs a new push attention. He thinks more or less sharply until finally something terribly provocative has occurred to him again. The provocation finds its way into the public. Everyone gets upset. The provocateur is satisfied. But not this time. This time we do not do that. And therefore not a word about Boris Palmer here.

Let's dedicate ourselves to the serious debate initiated by former top handball player Stefan Kretzschmar: is there freedom of expression in Germany? "Kretzsche", as his fans call him, seems to have a clear view: "We have no freedom of expression in the true sense," he said in an interview with "t-online".

A video excerpt of this interview was shared by numerous right-wing extremists and AfD accounts, in a second wave Kretzschmar was criticized by the left. The "Tagesspiegel" called his statements "false and dangerous".

Meanwhile, some people had actually taken the trouble to read the whole interview, and found that Kretzschmar might have meant everything quite differently. The conversation is not so surprising mainly about handball and Kretzschmars biography. He talks about his time as a young man in quasi-lawless Berlin after the fall of the wall, his socialization in the left-wing squatters and his participation in a demo that earned him a rebuke from club management. And he notes that today it is no longer possible for athletes to speak out of the mainstream politically, without risking a shitstorm. In this context, the sentence fell with the freedom of expression.

Kretzschmar himself says that the instrumentalization of his interview with political groups "that could not be further from my own political views" is grotesque. "But if any athlete or public figure needed proof of my thesis, he got it," he told the "Bild" newspaper. Case settled, one might think, and Kretzsche can return to his duties as a handball World Cup ambassador, whatever they may be.

But maybe it's worth taking a closer look at this little episode. For there remains the question of why Kretzschmar's sentences were so well received by rights.

Even the last AfD backbencher should be clear: Of course, in Germany guaranteed by the Basic Law freedom of expression. And Kretzschmar does not deny that. He seems more concerned with non-state consequences of freedom of expression. When he speaks of "reprisals from employers", apparently clubs are meant that do not want their exposed professionals to damage their image with their statements. Explicitly he mentions terminated advertising contracts, but there the matter is even simpler: If an advertising medium expresses itself publicly in such a way that the sponsor sees itself no longer positively represented, it announces just the contract.

Athletes are athletes and not democratic theorists

As a public person with an advertising contract you have to take good care of what you say and do - today, perhaps more than Kretzschmar's professional times. He may regret that, but the professionals knowingly went into these contracts and got a lot of money for that. This has more to do with capitalism than freedom of expression - and Kretzsche has obviously misunderstood this.

What is so wild: Athletes are athletes and not Democracy theorists. One can criticize Kretzschmar for his statements. But it is certainly wrong to denounce him as a right-wing man because of his sentences taken out of context.

In the column Agitation and Propaganda Stefan Kuzmany writes about the current developments in politics and society.

Subscribe to the newsletter directly and for free here:

Yes, I would like to receive non-binding offers from the SPIEGEL publishing house and the manager magazin publishing company (for magazines, books, subscriptions, online products and events) by e-mail. I can revoke my consent at any time.

All newsletters

However, the right interpretation of the Kretzsche interview goes beyond the problems of top athletes: even the average person, the subtext says, can not say what he thinks in this country without fear of repression.

Now the ordinary citizen commonly has no sponsorship contract, but a job. The hurdles, however, to terminate a worker for political statements, are very high. Nobody can be terminated in Germany, because he criticizes, for example, the refugee policy of the government.

Anyone who glorifies or justifies Nazi rule will be punished

Freedom of expression, however, is not unrestricted: those who work for a so-called tendency mode, so for example for a medium, a party or a church, must expect to lose his job if he publicly opposes the principles of the employer. But the question arises why he should not look for another job anyway. Even those who insult someone can not appeal to the freedom of expression. And anyone who endorses, glorifies or justifies Nazi rule will be punished.

Labor law consequences for expressions of opinion are normally only permissible if they mean actual border crossings - if, for example, a colleague expresses himself openly as a racist or a Nazi.

So what do the right cheers say when they enthusiastically share Kretzschmar's video, implying that there is no freedom of expression in Germany? Are the limits of freedom of expression in Germany still too tight for them? What are those opinions that you do not think you can express but that need to be expressed?

It seems to be quite outrageous views. It can not be the usual anonymous racism, unfortunately it is ventilated constantly and evidently without any worries. So, dear rights, let me hear you. Explain openly what nobody is supposed to say. At last everyone knows how you really think.

Here's my answer: Nazis out.