The CDU chairman Friedrich Merz recently said that "cancel culture" is the "greatest threat to freedom of expression".

This week he canceled an event after inviting people whose opinion he didn't share.

That sounds like Merz is inconsistent and itself a threat to freedom of expression.

Anyone familiar with the case, however, realizes that this is not true.

Merz was invited by a right-wing German campaign platform called The Republic to debate with American Senator Lindsey Graham.

This should take place in the Baden-Württemberg state representation in Berlin.

Merz agreed, although he rejects Graham politically.

He considers him a "guarantor" of Trumpism, which is arguably the most unfavorable thing to say about an American politician.

Merz's commitment shows that he has no fear of contact.

The same applies to the state representation, which was clear that the conversation would not be amicable.

But that's what debates are for.

Then it became known who "The Republic" had invited.

The publicist Henryk M. Broder, for example.

Although he votes for the animal welfare party, he is also very popular with the AfD.

Once the parliamentary group invited him to give a lecture, Broder came, denied climate change and was hugged by the chairwoman Alice Weidel.

Not everyone can say that about themselves.

Another guest should be Joachim Steinhöfel.

This is a lawyer who has already worked for the AfD and is currently representing the former chairman of the "Union of Values" Max Otte.

He was thrown out by the CDU after he had applied for the office of Federal President – ​​as a candidate for the AfD.

Steinhöfel and Merz are therefore legal opponents.

Merz didn't want to spend the day with someone like that and canceled.

He still wanted to meet Trumpist Graham, just somewhere else.

Graham refused.

Conservatives would "not cancel each other before speaking," Graham said, canceling the meeting with Merz.

Then the state representation canceled the event of the think tank.

She feared for her "reputation".

Was that premature censorship?

Merz does not need to upgrade his opponents' lawyers

First to Merz: Freedom of expression does not mean that Merz has to upgrade his political opponents' lawyers and favorite columnists.

Not only opinions are free, but also the decision where to join the discussion.

"Cancel Culture" means withdrawing unwelcome opinions from the forum, which Merz just hadn't done.

If anything, the state representation would have done that, but they only acted after Merz's cancellation.

This is important.

A podium with Merz and Graham is different than one with Steinhöfel and Broder.

A state representation can not only cancel this, you can also expect it not to hold any bizarre events.

Before the concept of the conservative was exploited by all sides, it once described an attitude critical of ideology.

So a conservative like Merz can reject “Cancel Culture” because it is ideological.

He can refuse to be co-opted by ideologues on podiums for the same reason.

Anyone who sees freedom of expression in danger as a result must consider how unfree the alternative is: urging Merz to participate so that no AfD lawyer feels canceled.