German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 19/218,
pp. 27589-27590.
Herr President. Ladies and gentlemen.
The political hygiene in Germany has deteriorated. It is a
deterioration which is related to the cases of corruption in the old parties: Almost
daily new cases of insatiable old-party careerists, amounting in the past to
dozens of cases. The political hygiene however has also deteriorated where it
concerns freedom of opinion, one of our central basic rights. And these two
problems we of the AfD take up with our draft law [Drucksache 19/27772].
Quote: “I guarantee the freedom of speech, but not the
freedom after the speech.” This statement has been attributed to the African
despot Idi Amin. The statement – quote: “ You actually can say anything in Germany.
Then sometimes the consequences need to be reckoned with”, originates from an
increasingly ineffectual sports moderator of the compulsorily financed German
broadcasting. Both statements or threats
are related to the state of freedom of opinion in Germany. This state of freedom
of opinion in Germany is bad. It is damned bad.
Our Basic Law in Article 5, paragraph 1 formulates – quote:
Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing and pictures…There shall be no censorship.
Despite this, how can it thus be that social media are
deleted, censored and blocked, that the skin cracks, that even speeches of
members of the German Bundestag will be deleted and blocked and that worldwide
over 100 million opinions per year, some 20 million in Germany, fall victim to
the deletion massacres of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram & Co., the increase
of which recently progresses at an exponential rate?
How are these deletion orgies thus to be brought into
harmony with the clear constitutional position which I have directly cited with
Article 5 of the Basic Law? Quite simply: Our Basic Law binds only the state,
and not perchance Facebook & Co. And since our state knows this, it has
out-sourced the censorship, that is to say, privatized it. Facebook & Co. gladly
participate in this, in any case support, by means of the weight of billions
and tax money financing, the rainbow programs of the multi-colored Civil Society,
the Amadeu Antonio Foundation and other dubious actors.
“Hate” and “agitation” are the censorship tools of today and
yesterday. “Agitation” is presently experiencing a renaissance. One might be
acquainted with it from the Gott sei dank
downfallen DDR. There was the boycott agitation and the anti-state agitation –
ever again gladly used as a vapid fighting term against critical spirits and
against the opposition. And “hate” – be it fond of nothing nice – is not
forbidden in Germany, particularly as each defines it differently.
Ladies and gentlemen, we of the AfD have recognized this
massive censorship and constitutional problem. We want to return to the free
roots of the social networks. Originally – we remember back some 15 years – the
social networks should serve so as to gather together opinions – without censorship!
For that, they received a privilege: They were not liable for what was
disseminated on them. Nevertheless, today these networks have developed
themselves into a medium of censorship: They intervene massively in the variety
of opinion and are no longer platforms. And therefore their liability privilege also
is no longer timely.
We thus want that the social media decide for themselves
whether they are a platform and permit all; under “all” naturally does not fall
what is relevant to criminal law. On the contrary, steps must be taken against
that, I think we are all of us agreed. They thus need to decide for themselves:
Are they a platform and are to permit all that is not relevant to criminal law,
or do they want to be a medium which censors what does not please them, which
censors what does not please the state and which only serves to disseminate feel-good
phrases?
How do we of the AfD now approach the problem? We propose
two changes to §7 of the Tele-media law:
First, a clear decision by social networks: Do they want to
be a platform? Then there is the liability privilege. Or do they more want to
be a medium? Then there is no longer a liability privilege.
Secondly is put forward that platforms with a market
dominant position in the sense of §18 of the GWB [Act against Restraints of Competition] need to delete
exclusively what is relevant to criminal law, failing which – and this is also
a further innovation – they make themselves obligated for replacement of
damages and compensation.
Ladies and gentlemen, with both of these changes, we should
all of us succeed in taking a decisive step in the direction of freedom of
opinion, thus back to the roots of a free internet. The opinion and censorship
massacres must be stopped. Our draft law shows a good way to that and I therefore
from here request a vote in favor. And I request that it be noted that I am
done five seconds before the time.
Many thanks.
[trans: tem]
