We provide the first systematic research into the origins of subjective freedom of speech in Germany. Relying on the GLES 2021 Cross-Section Pre-Election Survey, which includes a newly designed survey item on subjective freedom of speech, we evaluate a whole range of plausible candidate hypotheses. First, we contribute to cumulative research by testing the explanatory factors in Gibson (1993)—citizens’ social class, their political involvement and political preferences, and their personality dispositions—for the German case. Second, we move beyond the state of the art and test three new hypotheses that reflect more recent political developments and arguments in the free speech debate: the role of social media, increasing political and social polarization, and the rise of populism. Importantly, all hypothesis tests reported in this paper have been preregistered prior to data collection. Our results reveal that three explanatory factors are significantly, consistently, and substantively related to subjective free speech in Germany: political preferences, populist attitudes, and identification with the Alternative for Germany party.
Some 23% of respondents disagree and 40% even strongly disagree with the statement that “people like them” are no longer allowed to freely express their opinions. Yet at the same time, one in five persons agree with this statement (8% of whom agree strongly) and report a lack of a subjective freedom of speech. The remaining 17% are undecided in their evaluation of this key civil liberty.
The thing I always wonder in these studies is how many of the 8% are angry that they aren’t allowed to spew hate speech against immigrants. Sure that speech is being restricted, but I think we can all agree that it is good they feel like they can’t speak their minds on it.
Most people can agree that certain types of speech are harmful and need to be restricted for that reason. Yet, western liberals cry about authoritarianism when this is done in countries like China.
The problem is that they are allowed to say whatever they want against immigrants. Hate speech is not restricted in Germany. Anti-hegemonic speech is. Anti-Zionist speech is. Racists and bigots are regularly given a platform to spew their vile shit but try and take an anti-imperialist stance and depending on what you say you risk actual legal consequences.
The thing I always wonder in these studies is how many of the 8% are angry that they aren’t allowed to spew hate speech against immigrants. Sure that speech is being restricted, but I think we can all agree that it is good they feel like they can’t speak their minds on it.
Most people can agree that certain types of speech are harmful and need to be restricted for that reason. Yet, western liberals cry about authoritarianism when this is done in countries like China.
The problem is that they are allowed to say whatever they want against immigrants. Hate speech is not restricted in Germany. Anti-hegemonic speech is. Anti-Zionist speech is. Racists and bigots are regularly given a platform to spew their vile shit but try and take an anti-imperialist stance and depending on what you say you risk actual legal consequences.