"There is no censorship." This is what the Basic Law says unequivocally, following the mention of freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of broadcasting.

Censorship, and I mean state censorship, is intended to prevent the state from checking the statements of everyone in advance and thus nipping freedom in the bud from the start.

Reinhard Muller

Responsible editor for "current affairs" and FAZ objection, responsible for "state and law".

  • Follow I follow

This must apply all the more to artistic freedom.

Because, like science and research, it is "free" - and not equipped with a legal reservation in the constitution.

Of course, that doesn't mean that it's guaranteed without restrictions.

The limits of artistic freedom are to be found in the constitution itself.

So it is not censorship when anti-constitutional works are removed from an exhibition.

In addition, in the case of the Documenta, a non-profit company with limited liability, it is not about intervention by the state - but at least an exhibition with state participation and the opening by the Federal President.

Sedition of the people is without a doubt against the constitution.

When certain groups of people are despised, when their dignity is violated, this cannot be done under the cloak of artistic freedom.

But it always has to be weighed up which fundamental right has to take precedence in the individual case.

Steinmeier's words of power

In the case of dealing with the Holocaust, there is also the fact that the Federal Constitutional Court sees the Basic Law as a counter-proposal to the Nazi regime, so it treats the handling of the Holocaust particularly sensitively.

At the opening of the Documenta, Federal President Steinmeier expressly referred to the freedom of art - but also to its limits: a democratic society should not patronize artists, let alone use them as an instrument.

"Politics does not judge the quality of art." The recognition of Israel "is the basis and prerequisite for the debate for us," said the German head of state in Kassel.

The freedom of art also includes the freedom to criticize Israel.

Some criticism of Israeli policy, such as the building of settlements, is "justified".

But "when criticism of Israel turns into questioning of its existence, the limit has been crossed".

Now Steinmeier did not name any work that questions the existence of Israel.

At the same time, he mentioned the difficulty of distinguishing between fierce, even unspeakable criticism of the occupation policy, some of which violated international law, and anti-Semitism.

Or is that hardly possible?

The general derogatory portrayal of Jews should be evaluated differently than a comparison of the Israeli armed forces with the Wehrmacht.

And the depiction of a Mossad figure as a pig, of all things, next to figures from other secret services, which are also portrayed in an unfriendly way, but in a different way?

Do you have to see this as a special experience, which is different from the German one?

The perspective of Palestinian victims of Israeli policy can certainly also be presented in a drastic way.

After all, it is also the purpose of artistic freedom to make the remote, the unspeakable, a subject.

Of course, the context must also be taken into account here: The Indonesian curatorial collective does not itself speak from the victim's perspective and has its share in the accusation of anti-Semitism through the (lack of) statements.

Just as there is no entitlement to artists of a certain nationality being invited to an exhibition, a targeted exclusion can also justify a reproach.

In any case, a lot comes together here, including the only subsequent installation of the most controversial work.

In any case, the Vice President of the World Jewish Congress thanked Steinmeier for his words that a strategy of exclusion and stigmatization is not separated from hostility towards Jews.

The President of the World Congress recently called for the term anti-Semitism to be abandoned and for Jew hatred to be spoken of.

The term "anti-Semitism" has lost its meaning.

If you called someone an anti-Semite today, people would just shrug their shoulders - and so would he.

Anyone who beats up Jewish students on campus or who says Israel shouldn't exist is a Jew hater.

The President of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, Josef Schuster, told the FAZ on Wednesday that nobody wanted to be anti-Semitic, so many disguised their anti-Semitism as criticism of Israel.

It is clear that criticism of Israel's policies is allowed.

But what about a "criticism" like in the picture "Guernica Gaza"?

A “red line” was crossed here due to the type of comparison, says Schuster.

In contrast to other companies, crossing the red line did not lead to direct government intervention.

"Guernica Gaza" got stuck, the most controversial work "People's Justice" was dismantled - the artists are still talking.

The International Auschwitz Committee called for dialogue with them.

"It is high time to start a conversation within the framework of this Documenta, to hear the artists from which world view these pictures were created, and to explain publicly on the part of the Documenta why these pictures are met with resistance and rejection here," he explained Executive Vice President of the Auschwitz Committee on Tuesday.

Not only here, one must add.

All human rights are limited by the rights of others.

The fact that this always has to be fought out in individual cases – peacefully and without the state – is an achievement of civilization.

This is freedom and not censorship.