What is the rationale behind Angela Merkel's criticism of Donald Trump's ban on Twitter?

Question

According to CNBC, Angela Merkel (via her chief spokesman) criticized Donald Trump's ban on Twitter.

“The right to freedom of opinion is of fundamental importance,” Steffen Seibert, Merkel’s chief spokesman, told reporters in Berlin on Monday, according to Reuters.

“Given that, the chancellor considers it problematic that the president’s accounts have been permanently suspended.”

The same article mentions that this is quite surprising due to not so good relations between Donald Trump and Angela Merkel:

Her apparent alignment with the president against the decision by Twitter to remove him comes as a surprise. The German leader, who doesn’t herself have a Twitter account, has often clashed with Trump over the years, while diplomatic relations between Washington and Berlin have been on the wane.

Also, the decision to ban Donald Trump seems to be more related to breaking the platforms' terms and conditions rather than an arbitrary limitation of freedom of speech.

Why criticize this?

Answer 1

While Germany does promote free speech, same as the USA does, their free speech means something different:

False information is not an object worthy of protection from the viewpoint of freedom of opinion (54 BVerfGE 208, 219). The deliberate assertion of untrue facts is not protected by article 5, paragraph 1 of the Basic Law;

Merkel did not say Trump should be allowed to spread his messages - the kind of speech Trump disseminated on Twitter would have landed him in court many times in Germany. Instead, in Germany it's seen as problematic when a private company decides what speech is and is not deemed acceptable, because that's a matter to be fairly decided by laws and courts*. Twitter is an international company that does have a presence in Germany, so I interpret Merkel's statement as "don't try to pull that kind of stuff over here".

---

*Reality is more complicated and counter-examples do exist. Yet in general in Germany the state is far more aggressive in limiting offensive/dangerous speech, and also more protective of citizens' online rights.

**The controversial German Network Enforcement Act from 2017 (NetzDG) demonstrates the massive difference between the German and the US approach. It doesn't simply give private companies powers to decide what speech is and isn't acceptable, it legally requires private companies to make judgments about what speech is and isn't acceptable, provides regulation for how they must go about deletions, bans, and preservations of evidence, and demands transparent published rules. The private company still decides, but it's a power that is deputized to the company by the state, with limits, boundaries and oversight. Please don't ask me which approach is better, because I have no idea.

Answer 2

We can not read Angela Merkel's mind, so her true motives are pure speculation. However, the original article by Reuters which is named as a source in the CNBC article linked in the question expands more on her stated rationale for her position:

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has reservations about the way President Donald Trump’s Twitter account was suspended, her spokesman said, adding that legislators, not private companies, should decide on any necessary curbs to free expression.

The intervention by Steffen Seibert, her chief spokesman, reflects concern in Berlin and much of Europe at the power giant social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook have to shape public discourse.

So in other words, her objections appear to not be because she suddenly likes Trump (just a couple days earlier she held him responsible for inciting the capitol riots by not conceding after losing the election to Joe Biden). Her concerns are that private companies become too powerful at controlling the public narrative.

Neither is she against limits to freedom of speech per se. She rather believes that the decision what speech to censor should be left to legislators instead of private companies.

Answer 3

There's an international dimension here. While US commentators largely see this in a US domestic context (an American company deciding what to do about American problems), Merkel will be looking at it in an international context; the idea of an American company making decisions about what a European head of state can and can't say is much more worrying.

(We see this kind of thing all the time. The social media platforms, for example, implement America's rather prudish attitude to non-sexual nudity; Germans are much more relaxed about nakedness.)

Answer 4

As has been said, we cannot read minds. I would like to think that this was a personal conviction based on a famous saying, I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it

However, Merkel is a politician and politicians above all do what is expedient. In reality, this probably has more to do with decrying the untrammelled power of corporations than defending Trump's right to speak. Certainly it has absolutely nothing to do with defending Trump's position.

Trump's influence is temporary. The influence of giant corporations could be disastrous if not contained. It could supplant democracy.

Answer 5

She insists that limitations on free speech may only be based on law, not arbitrary decisions by companies. Unfortunately, there is no original speech from her, only her spokesperson (Seibert).

The CNBC article is heavily distorting, as if she was supporting Trump (she isn't).

In fact, many German authorities and mainstream media have strongly demanded and appreciated censorship on social media, far beyond the legal boundaries. While legal restrictions on topics like hate speech are controversial from a free speech position, they currently affect only a rather small part of the "undesirable" content. Most recent pushes for censorship have targeted "fake news" and "disinformation", as well as very loose definitions of "hate speech", which are not punishable by law.

Calls for this kind of censorship have increased, with wrong and delusional content becoming more common, influential and sometimes dangerous, such as health risks through anti-vaxxers, denial and downplaying of Covid-19, or calls to flout safety rules. Conspiracy beliefs like QAnon and their influence on the US election are currently a big topic.

Treating social media as "private space", where the owner can implement and enforce arbitrary "rules-of-house", is the easiest way of censorship, without passing laws or having sanctions checked by courts.

Currently, hate speech laws in Germany affect mostly gross insults and defamation, or calls for mass murder/genocide (§130 of penal code, "Volksverhetzung", hate mongering or sedition). A number of political penal laws exist on Nazi history, such as use of Nazi-era symbols (including gestures and phrases), Holocaust denial and glorification of Nazi leaders. They affect mostly fringe groups and can easily be avoided (or evaded).

Answer 6

I'm often not a fan of metaphors but this came immediately to my mind:

In a country all major roads are toll roads owned by two or three large corporations. People depend on these roads to go places. Obviously they must obey the traffic rules of the state when they use these roads. The issue at hand is that the companies impose additional rules at will by which the users must abide, or else.

The problem is obvious: The roads are vital for the functioning of the country, to a degree that resemble a public service; but the drivers are at the mercy of the companies. They can boot users even if they have not violated the legal traffic rules (only company rules). Such an exclusion is an existential threat to the victims but there is no clear recourse, no established judicial oversight and so on. —

Now such an oligopoly is not uncommon; utility companies, cell and cable services, post offices, banks etc. often are in similar positions. What makes the conflict unusual and important is that it concerns the exchange of opinions in the public sphere. This marketplace of opinions has since day one been recognized as the core of a democratic political system, which is why it is heavily protected in all democratic countries.

Should Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey and Jeff Bezos be the ones who regulate the public exchange of opinion (because I bet that it was their personal decision, in the end)? Merkel is not the only one feeling uneasy about that.