Merkel argues for total media censorship

Last month, Merkel accused AfD, battling with overwhelmingly negative coverage in mainstream newspapers, of “spreading their lies” through social media. The party has nevertheless experienced significant breakthroughs in regional elections around the country, in the face of mounting censorship by the State.

A fortnight ago, the leader of Merkel’s parliamentary CDU faction, Volker Kauder, said that social media should be fined €50,000 for failing to remove “hate speech,” saying that a “Sword of Damocles” has to hang over social media. Kauder also called for warnings, similar to those on cigarette packs or before entering pornographic websites, to be given to those about to go on social media.

Justice Minister Heiko Maas – who said that there had been a 77 percent increase in hate crimes following the arrival of 900,000 asylum seekers – has given internet media companies until February next year to comply with EU directives on “xenophobia and racism”, or face legal action.

According to Merkel: “The algorithms [on social media] must be made public, so that one can inform oneself as an interested citizen on questions like: what influences my behavior on the internet and that of others?”

Merkel complained during a media conference in Berlin on Tuesday. “These algorithms, when they are not transparent, can lead to a distortion of our perception, they narrow our breadth of information.” Both Google and Facebook use algorithms for displaying search results or their news feed order, often based on a user’s own media interests.

Merkel is essentially demanding that Google give away their entire business, as these algorithms are at the core of the intellectual property owned by the company. Google’s algorithm is worth billions of dollars. If they were to release the algorithm, it would effectively render their product – their search engine – valueless, beyond the value of its brand name. But the chancellor may believe she has the law on her side to pry open some of the most highly-protected trade secrets in the world.

The German Press Council (Presserat) currently enforces a politically correct “code of media ethics” that restricts the information correspondents may report on. Paragraph 12.1 of the code states:

“When reporting on criminal offenses, details about the religious, ethnic or other background information of the suspects or perpetrators is to be mentioned only if it is absolutely necessary (begründeter Sachbezug) to understand the reported event. Remember that such references could foment prejudices against minorities.”

On October 17, the Press Council reprimanded the weekly newspaper, Junge Freiheit, for revealing the nationality of three Afghan teenagers who raped a woman at a train station in Vienna, Austria, in April 2016. The press council said the nationality of the perpetrators is “not relevant” to the case, and by revealing this information the newspaper “deliberately and pejoratively represented the suspects as second-class persons”. Nary a peep about their transgressions.

In fact, in the interests of “fair reporting,” the council issued a demand that the newspaper remove the offending racial description from its website. The newspaper refused to comply and said it would continue to publish the nationalities of criminal suspects.

The Press Council actually regulary distorts reporting on migrant crime. An example is the reported rape in October of a 90-year-old woman outside a church in downtown Düsseldorf. The Hamburger Morgenpost reported that the perpetrator was a “homeless 19-year-old” [obdachlosen 19-Jährigen]. Düsseldorf Police described the suspect as “a Southern European with North African roots.” The newspaper Bild later revealed that he is actually a Moroccan delinquent with a Spanish passport, well known to German police.

But Lutz Tillmanns, the Press Council’s managing director, maintains that self-censorship is necessary to avoid “discrimination”: “An essential human rights-related principle is not to discriminate. When we refer to an individual we do not want to harm the entire group. This is, of course, a bigger issue for minorities than for the majority.”

The German Press Council’s code of ethics should extend to the German police too, who often censor the information they release to the media anyway.

Hendrik Cremer of the German Institute for Human Rights argues that the limitations to free speech are more important than fighting crime: “The police are not to provide information about the skin color, religion, nationality or national or ethnic origin of a suspect to the media or to the public. They may only do this if it is absolutely necessary, which is the case, for example, when they are searching for a suspect.”

But Arnold Plickert, director of the GdP Police Union in North Rhine-Westphalia, pointed out that self-censorship by the police was counterproductive: “The police are not interested in stigmatizing but rather in educating the public. The impression that we are engaging in censorship is devastating to the public’s confidence in the police. Sharing information about suspects is also important for developing prevention strategies. We must be allowed to talk openly about the problems of this country. This includes talking about the clear over-representation of young migrants in our crime rosters.”

When a 28-year-old migrant sexually assaulted a 27-year-old woman on a Mannheim express train to Paris in September, local media initially reported the nationality of the perpetrator but then deleted the information. In a statement they explained the move by saying: “This article initially included the nationality of the offender. The reference was subsequently removed because it did not correspond to our editorial guidelines — that is, there is no connection between nationality and action.”

The German Press Council has rejected calls to rescind Paragraph 12.1. “This regulation is not a muzzle, but merely a guide for ethically appropriate behavior,” said council spokesman Manfred Protze.

But readers aren’t fooled by the veiled threats of the Press Council. Tanit Koch, the editor in chief of Bild, the most-read newspaper in Germany, says the Council believes that editorial offices in Germany should ultimately treat their readers like children by depriving them of relevant information: “We think this is wrong because when people realize that something is being concealed from them, they react with mistrust. And this mistrust is a hazard.”

In October two migrants raped a 23-year-old woman in Lüneburg. The migrants attacked her from behind while she was walking in a park with her young child. The assailants who remain at large, forced the child to watch while they took turns raping the woman. If the media had offered descriptions of the perpetrators, the miscreants would have been apprehended.

Also in October a 25-year-old migrant from Syria groped a 15-year-old girl in Moers. When the girl fought back, the migrant called police and complained that the girl had “mistreated” him. He was less fortunate as the police arrested him for sexual assault. But most migrants get away with their misdeeds.

Sigrid Meierhofer, the mayor of Garmisch-Partenkirchen, in an urgent letter (Brandbrief) to the Bavarian government, threatened to close down a shelter housing 250 mostly male migrants from Africa because of the growing lack of public safety and order in the same month. The letter, leaked to the Münchner Merkur, stated that local police had responded to more emergency calls in six weeks than in the previous year.

The Press Council remains impervious to charges media manipulation and censorship of free speech. It argues that the aim of “voluntary self-regulation” is to prevent the government from regulating the media. Having mainly focused on print media and associated websites, it is now drafting an “online code” to regulate blogs, videos and podcasts as the alarming data about migrant rapes become ever more apparent.

Censorship has effectively become a national security problem as public spaces in Germany have become increasingly perilous. A YouGov poll conducted recently found that 68% of Germans believe that security in the country has deteriorated over the past two or three years. Also, 68% of respondents said they fear for their lives and property in German train stations and subways, while 63% feel unsafe at large public events.

The Federal Criminal Police Office (Bundeskriminalamt, BKA), faced with the rampant attacks, has suggested that women run away: “Wear tennis shoes instead of high heels so that you can run away.”