Freedom of Speech: How to Thwart the Staging as a Victim

In Germany, there is a thought police, that is an accusation from the right scene. After the protests against the lecture of the AfD co-founder Bernds Lucke in Hamburg is discussed again.

Such disturbances are recurring - rights stormed the lecture of the linguist Eric Wallis.

Representatives of the far-right "Identitarian Movement" disturbed his speech to prove that freedom of expression was jeopardized. Wallis took this as a teaching example. This shows what is behind the right staging as a victim.

"Brain washing - Framing against xenophobia" is the theme that Wallis talks about in November 2018 as part of a 24-hour lecture at the University of Greifswald. Politicians like Philipp Amthor from the CDU and Gregor Gysi from the left are also invited. At 14 o'clock Wallis, full-time press spokesman for Greenpeace, is on it.

In the middle of his lecture men storm in from the far-right "Identitarian Movement". They call "Tradition Multicultural Endstation" and unroll a banner: "One will probably still be allowed to say his opinion". This is also visible on videos.

My lecture on the #manipulation of concerned citizens by law #Framing was enriched with a practical example of the so-called # Identities. Unfortunately her #Opfer_Framing did not work out. #Greifswald @wissen_lockt pic.twitter.com/TkluPmqmMV

SPIEGEL: Mr. Wallis, what was going on there?

Eric Wallis: What you can not see in the video: I just talked about rights working with extreme exaggeration, then a man got up and contradicted me: people had been murdered in the name of all multiculturalism, he pointed out Terrorist attacks.

SPIEGEL: How did you react?

Wallis: I picked up on his point and invited him to discuss with us after the lecture. Shortly thereafter, the men from the "Identity Movement" stormed in. I told them that they would like to share their opinion and invite them to stay. But they did not want to. They are gone.

SPIEGEL: Others would have called the security service in your place. Why she not?

Eric Wallis: I think that the representatives of the "Identitarian Movement" put it right. They wanted me to refer the room to the man who contradicted me and say that such opinions have no place here. That's exactly what I did not do. With this I have thwarted their plan to stage themselves as victims of a left opinion dictate. I did not want to let her do that.

SPIEGEL: What makes you think that such a thing should be staged?

Wallis: I later learned that the man belonged to the group. Moments after he spoke, people came in from the Identity Movement. Some were disguised as security forces and pretended to take the man away. But that would only have made sense if I had blocked him before. So they have taken someone who I had previously invited for discussion.

SPIEGEL: Did you feel threatened in the situation?

Valais: Not at all, especially since people have not rioted. The performance was a nice example of my lecture, even an enrichment. Then came the real life and the discussion about freedom of speech in the lecture hall. I and many others in the room certainly disagreed with the disturbers, but I thought we could do it now, and in an emergency, I moderate that.

SPIEGEL: You think it's ok if your lecture is stormed?

Wallis: I also know the situation from the other side, I have already been civil disobedience, for example as a Greenpeace activist. Of course, there is a very different motivation behind this than with the "Identitarian Movement", but we also disturbed people in order to draw attention to our concerns. I think that's basically okay as long as the protest form is peaceful. You have to adhere to the rules of the discourse.

SPIEGEL: What do you really mean?

Wallis: If someone disturbs my lecture, perhaps he has a legitimate concern, then he should also be allowed to express his opinion, but in the discussion that follows. If someone continues to disturbingly penetrate, he excludes himself from the discourse, even in the eyes of his followers. That's the interesting thing for me.

SPIEGEL: How do you determine that?

Wallis: On Twitter after the incident, some comments from AfD supporters who have distanced themselves from the thesis that the rights were victims and curtailed in their freedom of expression. That was not the crowd, but at least individuals.

Markus Scholz / DPA

Bernd Lucke leaves the lecture hall after his failed inaugural lecture

The thesis of the limited freedom of expression is discussed again after the incidents at the lectures of the AfD co-founder Bernd Lucke in Hamburg. The first lecture on October 16 is not accompanied by a small, peaceful demonstration organized by the AStA. Some activists storm the auditorium and berate Lucke as "Nazi pig". He breaks off the event.

At Luckes second lecture on October 23, security forces try to shield the event against disturbers. Vain. Some demonstrators jostle by. Lucke then breaks off again and leaves the hall. The incident is sharply criticized. Hamburg Senator of Science Katharina Fegebank of the Greens speaks of "injustice in its purest form".

The Lucke Lecture will take place for the third time on October 30, under massive police forces. It runs smoothly. Lucke could have responded to the university's offer and transmitted the lecture to his students via livestream. But he refused, according to the university.

Felix Steins, student of social economics, who has again announced a demonstration against the lectures for this day, believes: "Luck is strongly about self-staging". Lucke himself does not respond to a SPIEGEL request for an interview. In the "TIME" he speaks of an "attack on freedom of expression, combined with the demand for a professional ban".

How Mr. Lucke could have reacted

SPIEGEL: In your case, rights disturbed the lecture, with Mr. Lucke there was massive protest from the other side. How could he react?

Wallis: Perhaps Mr. Lucke could have achieved something if he had acknowledged the deliberate poisoning of the social climate by the AfD and their language as a mistake. But he would have had to be ready to understand the protesters on this very point.

SPIEGEL: Mr. Lucke had to stop two lectures. Is he a victim or is he a victim?

Wallis: Mr. Lucke is responsible for the fact that there is now the AfD, a party in which today fascists hold important political posts. Mr. Lucke has in some ways distanced himself from the party. But when people protest against this man teaching at a university, that's important and legitimate. But: It must not come to verbal and physical violence. That's not right, and it also invalidates the protest.

SPIEGEL: Who benefits from the protest?

Wallis: I do not know if he will ultimately benefit Mr. Lucke. He is actually away from the window, politically meaningless. You can protest against that, but I would not do it. The storming of his lecture will certainly benefit right-wing populists, AfD officials who have put it on a split in society and place repeatedly, the freedom of expression is threatened.

SPIEGEL: Is she threatened?

Valais: Freedom of expression has become a political buzzword. This justifies that everyone can shout out his opinion, and no one is allowed to say anything. First, people forget that others have a completely different opinion and are allowed to express it. Second, freedom of expression is the dimension of listening. Only in this way does freedom of speech benefit our society: if we at least take notice of opinions that we do not like and try to understand them in a rudimentary way.

Axel Heimken / dpa

Policemen monitor access to the lecture by AfD co-founder Lucke

SPIEGEL: If racist and inhuman sentences fall, are not borders of freedom of expression reached?

Wallis: Counter question: what should I do with someone who transcends these borders? Lock him up in jail? Or at least block in social networks? This divides the society further. If I think I'm morally superior and want a better society, even if I'm disgusted by opinions, I have to invite these people for coffee and ask, "How do you get your opinion?"

SPIEGEL: Did you do that already?

Valais: Yes, and in most cases it turns out that many people who run after AfD officials are driven by great anxiety, fear of losing their jobs, their standard of living, their cultural identity. Right-wing populists stir up these fears with a certain framing.

How people are linguistically programmed

SPIEGEL: You have to explain that.

Wallis: Framing can be seen as an attempt to program people in terms of language. When right-wing populists use terms such as "population exchange", "knife immigration" or "loss of control" or speak of themselves as "victims" of a "dictatorship of opinion", they divert people in a certain direction and stir up fears. A differentiated discussion is then hardly possible anymore. On the other side, there are also fears.

SPIEGEL: Which ones?

Wallis: These are fears that attach themselves to a "never again fascist" framing. Whenever right-wing attitudes become visible, many people also turn to this thought-chute because of German history: "No, we do not talk about rights, which only makes them socially acceptable."

SPIEGEL: The argument can not be completely dismissed.

Wallis: But this blanket defense blinds you to the fact that "these rights" are not a homogeneous mass. Instead, people use the word "Nazis" for those who frolic on a Pegida demo. This automatism strengthens now just the group identity of the people, who then defiantly call: "Well, then we are just right". This is how the society keeps splitting. So people who position themselves against the right drive other people who are not really Nazis into the arms of people like Björn Höcke. And they definitely steer the public discussion.

SPIEGEL: How that?

Wallis: You specifically commit language border crossings, sprinkle Nazi vocabulary and know that they triggers us with it and trigger a shitstorm that continues to polarize. This is extremely dangerous. This shows for me the increased attacks and threats from the right scene against politicians. There must be no such thing.

SPIEGEL: How do you get out of this?

Wallis: Only when I realize what Framings are I can see the difference, for example between hard-nosed Nazis and the elderly lady, who is afraid of criminal aliens, but is quite capable of empathy. Or make it clear to me that the Syrian father does not have anything to do with terrorists who have been taken in. I have to get out of my filter bubble and talk to people who think differently. Only then can we move towards each other.