An interview of several hours by podcaster Benjamin Berndt with the AfD politician Björn Höcke is currently causing political and media discussions throughout Germany. Not only because of Höcke's statements himself, but above all because of the reactions to them. Critics see this as a dangerous stage for a controversial politician. Others, on the other hand, see the outrage as further evidence that political debates in Germany are increasingly being restricted.

Former SPD chairwoman Saskia Esken reacted particularly sharply. She publicly spoke out in favor of advertisers withdrawing financial support from the podcast "Ungeskriptet". Literally, she said in a video, "Blacklisting helps". Background: The interview with Höcke achieved high click numbers and enormous reach on the net within a short time. 

Boycott call by Saskia Esken ("Blacklisting"): Esken called on companies to withdraw their advertising money by blocking advertising on YouTube for this channel. She wrote on Instagram: "I'll say: blacklisting helps".
Criticism of the platform: It accused podcaster Benjamin Berdt of offering a "fascist" like Höcke a stage for four hours, without critical questioning (unscripted and uncontradicted).

Accusation of greed for profit: Esken criticized that such content would generate "millions of views and pretty good advertising revenue in a short time".

Defending the procedure: Esken reacted to accusations of censorship by defining her actions as "attitude" and not as state censorship

Because it is no longer just about the AfD or Björn Höcke himself. It is about the question of how far democracy and freedom of expression actually go when political views deviate from the government's course.

of the escalation accuse the SPD politician of not reacting to the interview with arguments, but with economic pressure. Media such as the Berliner Zeitung or other commentators openly speak of an attempt to dry up unwelcome platforms financially. 

In fact, many citizens increasingly get the impression that alternative media, opposition voices or platforms critical of the government are no longer being fought objectively, but are being systematically delegitimized. Especially in social media, there is a growing perception that political debates are only accepted within a narrow corridor of opinion.

The irony is that it is precisely those political forces that present themselves as defenders of democracy and diversity that seem increasingly intolerant of dissenting opinions to many people.

At the same time, approval of the AfD has been rising significantly for months. In current polls, the party is even ahead of the CDU/CSU in some cases. Many political observers also see this as a direct consequence of the so-called "firewall" policy.

Instead of dealing with the content of the AfD's issues, established parties often rely on exclusion, moral delegitimization and coalition bans. Critics consider this to be a strategic mistake. Because those who sweep millions of voters as "problematic" or "extreme" drive many citizens all the more into the arms of the protest party.

Even commentators from major media houses have now warned that actions such as calls for a boycott of podcasts or bans on conversations could have the opposite effect. 

The debate is given additional explosive fuel by discussions about how to deal with AfD members in the civil service. In Germany, there has been increasing discussion for months about whether civil servants or employees of the public service with an AfD connection should continue to work without restrictions.

For many citizens, this development awakens historical memories. Quite a few speak openly of the fact that political convictions could increasingly decide again whether people are accepted or excluded professionally. The comparison with dark chapters of German history is being made more and more often – especially in social networks.

Of course, today's Federal Republic is not to be equated with the Germany of 1933. Nevertheless, the discussion shows how deep the social divide has become in the meantime. When political opponents are no longer to be fought with arguments, but are to be excluded economically, socially or professionally, a dangerous feeling arises in many people: that freedom of expression only applies to "the right opinion".

Regardless of how you feel about Björn Höcke or the AfD, a democracy must basically be able to tolerate the fact that even uncomfortable or controversial voices are allowed to speak in public.

Long interviews without permanent interruptions or moral classification are currently experiencing a boom on platforms like YouTube. Many viewers have lost trust in traditional media and are deliberately looking for uncut conversations to get an idea for themselves.

Anyone who instead tries to punish platforms economically or indirectly prevent talks reinforces precisely the mistrust that is already massively damaging the established parties.

The decisive question is therefore not whether one likes Höcke or not. The crucial question is:
Does Germany want an open culture of debate — or a democracy in which certain opinions are increasingly pushed out of the public sphere?

After all, democracy and freedom of expression do not begin with banning political opponents or excluding dissenters. They begin where controversial opinions have to be endured. The interview by podcaster  "Ben" Benjamin Berdt can be found here in the linkAuthor: Guest author Source: Die Welt /










Apollo News / Berliner Zeitung / unscripted by Ben / YouTube
⚠️



Disclaimer:

This article does not reflect the personal opinion of MFRadio.de, Mission Freedom Ltd. or the editorial team.

The published content serves journalistic reporting, the presentation of social developments and public discourse on political, economic and social topics.

Opinions, comments, assessments or formulations within the article come exclusively from the respective guest author or editorial author of the article.

MFRadio.de sees itself as a platform for different perspectives, discussions and social debates within the framework of the applicable laws on freedom of expression and freedom of the press.