Ruben Rupp, January 15, 2026, TTPA and Freedom’s Advocate

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/53, pp. 6312-6314. 

Right honorable President. Honored members. 

The CDU Minister-president Daniel Günther just a few days ago quite openly declared the press to be an enemy. He spoke of censorship, ja, even of a ban of free media – statements which, let us be honest, had they been used by an AfD minister-president 

            Bettina Hagedorn (SPD): Happily, there are none!

would have immediately led to demands for a party ban proceeding. They will now by the Union be relativized and applauded, dear colleagues of the CDU/CSU. If you have the decency, then distance yourself here and today from such authoritarian fantasies of the minister-president. 

            Maja Wallstein (SPD): You speak like the blind man of color. 

            Stephan Brandner (AfD): Wow! Can the next speaker do the same?

Especially handy for Günther and his supporters is that the European Union meanwhile delivers precisely this tool suitable for his authoritarian dreams from the Digital Services Act, which the coordinating office for digital service in fact degrades to a censorship authority 

            Konrad Körner (CDU/CSU): That is false!

by the planned EU chat control which shall make possible an unfounded mass surveillance of citizens, up to a so-called decree on “transparency and targeting of political advertising”; in short: TTPA. And before you, as so often in these debates, respond to our motion [Drucksache 21/3609] with over-reaching allegations: 

            Ronja Kemmer (CDU/CSU): Mimimi!

Just because we want to cancel the TTPA is not to say we are against transparency or would tolerate foreign influence in elections. 

            Anna Luthmann (Greens): Ach so!

These fairy tales of the AfD as a supposed foreign marionette are simply untrue. Possibly you are simply envious because you yourselves scarcely still have international contacts. In short: This marionette card is in all cases the cheapest propaganda, and I am sure you will again today unpack this propaganda, because you have no arguments against the AfD and against this motion. 

            Sonja Lemke (Linke): We have quite good arguments against the AfD!

In fact, this decree is an attack on the opposition and freedom of the press. Yet in turn you come along. 

Ostensibly, the TTPA theme comes as so often with an apparently plausible reasoning: No influencing of elections! Yet it’s only about transparency. That this decree for transparency is not necessary is shown by the state of the social media prior to the introduction of this decree. 

I myself have connected digital advertising on Facebook. I needed to quite clearly specify who financed the advertisement, needed to authenticate it with the personal statement, and much more. That was transparent, that was sufficient. 

What now does the TTPA do beyond that? Expensive compliance, extremely difficult targeting, massive legal insecurity for platforms. What now exactly is political advertising? And at what point is it political advertising? – And a high risk of compensatory fines for the smallest mistakes! The result: The effective withdrawal of almost all large platforms – Meta with Facebook and Instagram, Google with YouTube. Since October 2025, political paid advertising in social media is de facto no longer possible. 

And whom does that harm? Not the governing parties, not the established media houses, 

            Johannes Schätzel (SPD): So far from the reality!

not ARD and ZDF. Harmed will be new parties, opposition forces, critical associations, candidates and think tanks. And yes, quite especially Germany’s strongest party, the AfD, will be harmed. Since we are present in the digital spectrum, because we enjoy no favorable, continual coverage by large publishing houses, or by public broadcasting media, like all of you here. 

What thus here is in fact happening is the targeted shutdown of a political competitor under the pretense of an ostensible transparency. I say: Away with this undemocratic, junk decree of the European Union! 

And if you now ask: Yes, AfD, what then is your solution for the influencing of elections? Quite simple: The fight against foreign influence is a duty of the security authorities, among others, the Federal intelligence service [BND, Bundesnachrichtendienst]. This ought to be strengthened. Since in the secret service work, we are meanwhile near completely dependent on the U.S.A. – and that because you in the area of security- and key-technologies have slumbered for years. That is your responsibility and your failure. 

Nevertheless, you are especially disillusioning in this debate – and this I cannot spare you, Herr Digital Minister Wildberger – with your cabinet draft law for political advertising transparency, the national ensuing legislation for the TTPA. This draft in regards so-called advertisers, thus parties, associations, business and political candidates, expressly enables house searches and seizures on account of ostensible violations of transparency. We are here quite quickly into criminal law. Who works politically needs in the future to thereby figure that he receives a house search. 

            Johannes Schätzel (SPD): Such rubbish!

And just retroactively can he defend himself against that. You thereby clearly create an intimidation effect. I ask you: Is that your idea of freedom of the press and fair, democratic competition? Ours is quite clearly not. 

And it becomes still worse. In regards danger in delay, house searches shall even be possible without legal writ. What may we then imagine of that? Does that mean that the successful pay videos, critical of the government, from Alice Weidel or from Nius chief Reichert are a danger in delay? The video is uploaded – danger in delay – and directly there are house searches on the initiative of the coordinating office for digital services which is controlled by the Digital Ministry? Need we imagine it? 

            Johannes Schätzel (SPD): Nein!

That something so is at all in a cabinet draft is incomprehensible. On this account, I say: Without delay, take back these regulations, Herr Digital Minister. 

If you do not believe me: It is in black and white in §6 and §7 of the cabinet draft. I myself have again taken a peek. I yesterday questioned the minister in committee. He disputed all of these problems which I listed here, designated the criticism – by analogy – as disinformation. 

            Konrad Körner (CDU/CSU): You too! 

            Johannes Schätzel (SPD): You too!

Herr Minister, here is the last opportunity to set it right. 

I expect here and today a clear statement of the Federal government. Take back this cabinet draft! Or do you adhere to seizures and house search even without a judicial decree? Yes or no? It cannot be so difficult to here clearly declare. 

Regardless of how the Digital Ministry positions itself, the AfD remains now and in the future the advocate for freedom. 

            Bettina Hagedorn (SPD): Hahaha!

You can be sure of it. 

Many thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]

Ruben Rupp, October 9, 2025, Chat Control and Child Abuse

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/31, pp. 3285-3286. 

Right honorable Frau President. Honorable members. 

I am proud of what we have done this week. 

            Konrad Körner (CSU/CSU): You have done nothing! 

For in common with the critics of the planned EU chat control, we have so built up a massive pressure that the Federal government has given way. They now want to vote no in Council at the vote for a possible baseless mass surveillance. I say one thing quite clearly: Yesterday was a great victory for the citizens, a great victory for the AfD, and a great victory for the freedom – You there laugh, I know. 

            Siegfried Walch (CDU/CSU): That is a joke!

The theater – and now listen closely, colleagues of the Union – up to this week on the theme of EU chat control is a disaster for the Federal government. It shows how disunited you are, as before, on the question of baseless mass surveillance. For long, the Federal government held itself to be covered on the theme of chat control so as to be able, in an expected clandestine ballot in the EU Council, to vote for chat control. 

            Siegfried Walch (CDU/CSU): What rubbish!

Otherwise, why for weeks have you not been concerned for clarification? You would have been able to do that. How so just now, shortly before the vote, a no of the Justice Minister? Where is the Chancellor’s no? That, I miss in place. 

            Götz Frömming (AfD): He’s not at all here!

No, you let it run, managed it up to the close in secrecy. And even in the Digital Committee yesterday, you refused to discuss this point publicly. We know quite precisely why: Because all the world would have seen how divided this Federal government is on this question. 

            Konrad Körner (CSU/CSU): That is just not right! 

            Armand Zorn (SPD): That is not at all right!

Since while the Justice Minister in council openly expressed herself for a no, Chancellor Merz clarified yesterday on X – I cite: 

            “The police protect us all. For that, they require the use of drones and a                              preventive telecommunications surveillance.” 

Quite obviously Chancellor Merz himself wants this mass surveillance of citizens, just so as the Interior Ministry. 

I say one thing to you: If it is not so as I here say, then position yourself here as Federal government – the Chancellor and his Vice-chancellor – and clearly declare that in the entire legislative period it will never come to a vote of this government on chat control!

If you want to do it honestly, do it now and here! We will therein measure you. And of course Chancellor Merz and the Vice-chancellor are again not in the hall. 

I say to you: It scares the citizens – me too – to know that the Chancellor personally and the Interior Ministry continue to want this chat control. 

            Konrad Körner (CSU/CSU): That’s not right!

And it is foreseeable that you will again start such an attempt when the time is ripe. Should you again take a run at this initiative – this I say to you – and dare the first great step for an authoritarian state which, utterly without basis, surveilles the citizens, then you will encounter bitter resistance from the side of the AfD delegation. We will exhaust to the maximum all political and judicial means so as to prevent the surveillance state. You can be sure of that. 

            Günter Kirings (CSU/CSU): Does Putin see it so? 

            Peter Boehringer (AfD): That is so embarrassing! Violations of basic rights!          

            Siegfried Walch (CDU/CSU, indicating speaker): He is embarrassing!

And no, the baseless mass surveillance does not effectively protect our children from disgusting pedophile perpetrators, from child pornography and child abuse. Since even the German child protection union rejects this EU madness as disproportionate and ineffective. And you quite precisely know: The AfD is sometimes the toughest when it is about the fight against child abuse. 

While the leftist bloc up to parts of the Union preferably wants to re-socialize the perpetrators, we want deterrence. 

            Siegfried Walch (CDU/CSU): Yes, madness!

We declare war on cuddling with the perpetrators, for our motto is “protection of victims, instead of protection of perpetrators.” 

Yet for you here in any case it is not about that. Since in regards the EU chat control, it is as with the Digital Services Act: As a reason advanced for a show window. You’ve even said: “We want to block illegal digital content” – okay – and: “The digital area is not allowed to be lawless” – okay. Yet then it was again expanded to disinformation, hate and agitation, and now the EU censors the free opinion. No, we want no state censorship apparat and no baseless surveillance. Exactly therefore needs be again abolished even so the Digital Services Act. The citizens’ freedom is not negotiable. 

 

[trans: tem]