German Far Right using SLAPPs to shut down criticism, new study indicates
Originally published by Blueprint for Free Speech
A study produced by the German chapter of the Open Knowledge Foundation titled "They Try To Paralyse Us," has shed light on a concerning trend: German right-wing extremist actors are increasingly employing legal means to target individuals and institutions that oppose or speak out against their ideologies. The study delves into the extent and consequences of these legal interventions on activism, journalism, culture, science, and local politics. Interviews, an online survey, and analysis of court decisions since 2015 formed the basis of this eye-opening research.
The German OKF’s FragDenStaat (AskTheSate) project introduced the study at the occasion of the launch of their new legal aid program, Gegenrechtsschutz, on 20 June. Designed to protect freedom of expression, press, arts, and science, this program provides support to individuals involved in legal disputes with actors from the far-right. By countering strategic legal attacks that abuse the law, Gegenrechtsschutz aims to ensure that crucial information remains accessible to all. The program’s intended activities have been shaped by the recommendations of the study into the use of SLAPPs by the far right.
The study’s findings unequivocally reveal a significant rise in legal interventions, demonstrating a deliberate strategy by the extreme right to impede critical reporting, statements, and actions. Alarmingly, only one-third of respondents claimed to have never been affected directly or indirectly. The study uncovered links between right-wing extremist actors and certain law firms, suggesting a coordinated and preventive use of legal means. Vulnerable individuals seem to be targeted intentionally, potentially leading them to withdraw from their activities or shift their focus.
The consequences of these interventions are severe, taking a toll on the psychological and emotional well-being of three-quarters of those affected. However, an encouraging trend emerges as affected individuals and their networks exhibit politicization and solidarity. The study indicates that a majority resisted the interventions with the assistance of legal representation, while others ignored the demands. It is worth noting that women were more likely to comply with the demands and less likely to resist compared to men. Financial risk and lack of legal support were the main reasons cited by those who did not fight back against the legal attacks.
Furthermore, the study exposes the chilling effect of these interventions, even beyond the immediate targets. The mere threat of legal action can coerce actors and institutions into self-censorship, limiting their statements and activities as a precautionary measure. These effects pose a grave threat to democratic civil society, as the barriers to launching such interventions are low, and plaintiffs face minimal legal consequences.
In light of these findings, it is imperative to take action to support and protect those potentially affected by right-wing legal intimidation. Robust legal support, financial assistance, and a united front against these tactics are crucial to safeguard freedom of speech and ensure that democracy thrives. Together, we must confront this insidious weaponization of the law and preserve the principles that underpin an open and inclusive society.