As a critic of Germany’s 19th-century censorship regime warned in 1901, “Police meddling with art are like bulls in a china shop.”
A modern version, following last week’s shocking statements by Daniel Günther (CDU), Minister President of Schleswig-Holstein, might read: “Politicians meddling with press freedom are like sparks in a powder keg.”
Exposing his censorious instincts during a talk show, Günther indicated he would like to see alternative news platforms banned. It began with him ranting for minutes about the influence social media now has on politics. Mentioning specifically the pro-populist news portal Nius, he spoke of “enemies of democracy.” Articles by Nius, he claimed, were “completely devoid of facts,” adding that “as a rule, nothing in the articles concerning me is true.” When the presenter asked whether these portals should be “regulated, censored, and in extreme cases even banned,” he replied, “Yes.”
Günther’s comments were so inflammatory that even many in the mainstream felt embarrassed. He is a well-meaning man who wanted to do the right thing but expressed himself clumsily, they claim. Those on the other side disagree: He’s a dangerous authoritarian who shouldn’t be in a position of responsibility—”an arsonist dressed up as a respectable citizen who has declared war on press freedom,” argues lawyer Joachim Steinhöfel, who has filed a lawsuit against him. Since the next election in his state isn’t due until 2027, it will be a while before Günther’s voters get a final say.
Naturally, he sees the well-deserved backlash against him as vindication of his statement about social media. Yet the outcry shows that the times are over when politicians, following the arrogance of power, could believe they’d get away with playing themselves up as arbiters of truth and guardians of democracy (“our democracy,” as they like to call it). Thank goodness for social media, we should add.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member