Censorship: Telegram in the line of fire

11/01/2022 · Colin Meier

Once again, the German mainstream media are sounding the alarm about social networks until they are hoarse: private groups and chats, hate speech, death threats, weapons manuals.
We know the refrain. As if social networks were limited to that, or as if crime had never existed before they were created. It is as though these journalists have only just discovered the world. The main culprits in their eyes? Organised crime? Drug traffickers or human traffickers? Well, no. It is the nasty demonstrators and opponents of the freedom-killing measures, who are supposedly becoming radicalised and whom they liken to terrorists.

The evidence? None, just isolated cases, accusations and transparently contrived links. The critical part of the population and social networks such as Telegram, where these “dangerous extremists” supposedly gather, have become the go-to scapegoats.

ARD ^[1] and then Der Spiegel ^[2] both called on the German State to act against the so-called radicalisation of demonstrators and to censor, or even outright infiltrate, the social networks that allow them to coordinate and share information, such as Telegram. ARD talks about the radicalised part of the opposition to the measures that supposedly wants to “sow terror”, without specifying how it defines this part, thereby implying that it applies to everyone. Der Spiegel writes that the protests are “escalating and becoming more radical”.

But on what basis do they promote this judgement of the demonstrators? ARD refers to two events: a grave candle placed on the doorstep of the Minister-President of Thuringia, Bodo Ramelow (Die Linke), and a murder committed at a petrol station following an altercation about masks. Der Spiegel, for its part, talks about weapons manuals allegedly circulating on Telegram and an “anti-vax” Telegram account that allegedly threatened doctors with death. Let us take a closer look at this.

Who cast the first stone?

The first event did not lead to any act of violence and moreover dates back more than a year, whereas ARD describes it as having taken place “a few weeks ago”. I remember this episode, because I had argued with my union leader about it. ARD does not even report it correctly: a leaflet ^[3] announcing the big demonstration in Leipzig ^[4] (50,000 to 70,000 people) had been placed next to the candle. The fact that it was a grave candle means nothing more than that, because having taken part many times in the “Querdenken” demonstrations (Editor's note: one of the groups of the opposition movement ^[5]), I know that the demonstrators use them themselves… because they are protected from the wind! So the act could also have been interpreted as an invitation to the demonstration. But what do you expect: insisting on the grave candle alone of course suggests far more sinister intentions.

On the other hand, ARD knowingly keeps quiet about the acts of violence committed either by infiltrated rioters ^[6]or by the “leftist” counter-demonstrators, who clearly called for violence against the demonstration and its organisers ^[7]. Another banner from the youth group of the party Die Linke read: “Your road will be stony and heavy” ^[8]. “Stony”, figuratively in German, describes something as hard and difficult. That same evening, a bus full of Querdenken demonstrators was on its way home when it was stoned (that is, attacked with stones – pure coincidence?!) by a group suspected of belonging to the far left ^{[9], [10]}. One of the victims was interviewed ^[11]. This was not, moreover, the first truly violent attack on opponents of the measures ^[12]. But these acts of violence against opponents of the measures are never reported by the big media outlets, private or public, so-called “of record”.

Media prejudice vs. legal facts

The second example is a deplorable but isolated act, which at first sight has nothing to do with social networks, and which took place on 18 September 2021 at a petrol station in Idar-Oberstein. After being reminded by the 20-year-old employee to wear a mask, the customer (aged 49), exasperated by his own account, shot him dead. The culprit, who confessed, turned himself in the next day. Three months after the events, as the investigation was coming to an end, the prosecutor himself stated that the perpetrator, although he got his information via Telegram and from independent media, had never been an active member of an opposition group and had never taken part in a single demonstration against the measures. The investigators reportedly searched his social media accounts and found a lot of content “critical of mainstream society and the State” ^[13]. Even if that is true (none of the content has been revealed), it does not mean that there were incriminating remarks or that his convictions were the cause of the criminal act. But given that the perpetrator had confessed, on the basis of what suspicion did they investigate his accounts, then? Nobody knows, because at the first press conference on 20 September 2021 ^[14] none of this was mentioned by the police.

Yet as early as 21 September 2021, a foundation quite notorious in the so-called fight against racism, conspiracy theories and everything it perceives as a far-right threat ^[15], the Amadeu-Antonio-Stiftung (subsidised by the German State ^{[16], [17]}), claimed to know the details of the case. It spoke of a criminal act associated with far-right and Querdenken circles, which the perpetrator's Twitter and Telegram profiles supposedly proved – whereas we now know, from the prosecutor himself, that this is false. The foundation even called “on no account to depoliticise” the case ^[18]. The political decision-makers and the media who subsequently quoted its statements, opportunistic as ever, did not need to be told twice and took up these accusations as their own ^{[19], [20], [21]}.

One cannot help thinking that the investigators would never have thought of going through his accounts, or at least would never have pushed the investigation so far, had it not been for this large-scale media campaign around the case ^[22], which immediately judged the perpetrator and placed him in the Querdenken camp and accused social networks of being behind this act, and which in the end may have influenced the investigation.

Misleading contextualisation

The third example, the one from Spiegel, refers to an interview with a gun fanatic who promoted weapons online ^[23]. Only, Spiegel did not file it under the topic of the murder in Idar-Oberstein, but under that of an attack dating from 9 October 2019 ^{[24], [25]}, which therefore has nothing to do with opposition to the freedom-killing measures. If it were a general example in an article about a problem in general, why not? But what is it doing in an article that introduces the subject through the radicalisation of the opposition to the measures? It is a misleading contextualisation that suggests, or even deliberately misleads.

Much ado, little evidence

The last example cited in the Spiegel article is the case of a Telegram channel that allegedly threatened doctors with death. The thing is, the only source cited ^[26] for this by Der Spiegel is merely the post on Twitter of an “expert” ^[27] with screenshots and no original source. While the person running the account was reportedly arrested, no source can be found on the matter. That is rather thin to broadcast it as established fact.

Double standards

So ask yourselves questions, if that is all they have found to get their teeth into after 18 months of opposition to the measures.

Media, political decision-makers and activists have apparently agreed among themselves to condemn a peaceful torchlight demonstration chanting “Peace, freedom, no dictatorship” ^[28]in front of the private residence of the Saxon health minister, Petra Köpping (SPD). They cite it as an example of the opposition's radicalisation towards the right ^{[29], [30], [31]} and are not ashamed to compare it to the “darkest hours of our History” ^[32]. They seem to forget that many of them used to consider that demonstrating (with torches, in particular) in front of the homes of political decision-makers was a perfectly acceptable form of freedom of expression and opinion when it came to targeting their political enemies, such as the far-right elected representative Björn Höcke (AfD) ^{[33], [34]}.

Populist politicians

Several politicians of course jumped at the occasion of the torchlight demonstration to declare: “It was an assault on democracy” ^[35] (Roland Wöller, CDU, Saxon Interior Minister) or “The more right-wing extremists and Querdenken supporters there are, the riskier the situation is for political decision-makers, because the State and civil society are not opposing them enough (…) The private sphere must be taboo (…) state intervention consistent” (Stephan Weil, SPD, Minister-President of Lower Saxony)^[36]. R. Wöller is even pushing the idea of “summary trials for breaches of the anti-corona measures” and says that “anyone who provides a platform for death threats must be able to be held responsible” ^[37].

As a result, since the means available to the German State do not reach the headquarters of Telegram in Dubai, Boris Pistorius (Lower Saxony Interior Minister, SPD) is calling on Apple and Google to censor Telegram by removing its app from their online stores, which would prevent future downloads and installations on smartphones ^[38]. Once again, censorship by delegation to the private sector.

The Thuringian Interior Minister, Georg Maier (SPD), for his part went as far as raising the geoblocking of Telegram in Germany (even if this is technically difficult because the servers are scattered across the planet), thus blocking or restricting access for all German users ^[39].

And even infiltration by the intelligence services is described there unequivocally ^{[40], [41]}. Of course, the abuse of power of this kind of method is denounced nowhere.

The programme ^[42] of the new governing coalition in Germany also proposes what is called a “login trap”. Should a “radicalised Querdenken supporter call for murder” ^[43] – the media's fixation on Querdenken and other opponents, while the government proposal is rather neutral, seems hypnotic – other users will be able to report it. After examination by specially trained police officers ^[44] and if an initial suspicion is confirmed, the trap will be set with the platform service, and at the next login the IP address will be recorded and can be used to identify the trapped user. The flaw? The context, more than polarised and largely created by political and media campaigns, may influence users' perception of what constitutes a punishable remark, in addition to the more than vague and less than objective definitions in the case of “hate speech” ^[45]. If German police officers already think today that opponents of the measures are “indirect murderers” ^[46], then the near future looks full of promise.

Not very independent “experts”

All these examples and remarks suggest a so-called link between Telegram and a so-called violent radicalisation of opponents of the measures. A premise not demonstrated by these press articles. But where do the media and politicians even get the information that anyone called for violence or even murder against P. Köpping or another politician, either online or at the demonstration? And what is the link with services like Telegram?

One of the leads goes back to the malicious assertions or interpretations of agents of domestic intelligence or state security, who are quoted in these same articles as experts, but who are not independent of political power. First example: “Red lines have been crossed […] [the movement] advocates the idea of violent resistance against democratic rules” ^[47] (Dirk-Martin Christian, head of Saxon domestic intelligence and a member of the CDU, like the Saxon Interior Minister and his superior, R. Wöller). Or again: “Politics merely watched the radicalisation of the corona deniers for too long and probably hoped that, with infections falling in summer, the problem would resolve itself” ^[48] (Stephan J. Kramer, head of Thuringian domestic intelligence and a member of the SPD, like the Thuringian Interior Minister and his superior, G. Maier). Yet these statements mention neither material evidence nor even clues, but above all call for doubt as to their political dependence.

I therefore ask to see the irrefutable evidence, because if it exists, they should be able to produce it without any problem. If they do not show it, it is because it does not exist, neither in my eyes nor in the eyes of a justice system that still cares about the presumption of innocence! When in doubt, I side with the accused!

This kind of remark, clearly populist because it both claims to stand for democracy and calls for denunciation, relentlessly targets one single group. These accusations are devoid of substantiated facts and obscure the fact that digital platforms are already regulated in Germany ^[49] and that calls for murder are obviously already punished by law ^[50]. Above all, they serve one purpose: to create a go-to scapegoat and throw dust in people's eyes in order to win the population's support and prepare it for increasingly extreme measures by pushing back the limits of the possible.

A German policy inspired by European delusions of grandeur

All this does not come out of nowhere, however. The ARD article clearly indicates that the “experts” and politicians aspire to a solution at international level, notably at the level of the European Union ^[51]. What is currently being proposed as a trial balloon in Germany matches the results of BAM!'s analysis ^[52] this summer: the preparation of an international regulation along the lines of a “Paris Agreement” for the regulation (or censorship) of the internet in the name of fighting radicalisation, disinformation, conspiracy theories, hate speech, etc. – a process initiated by the European institutions not against, but in cooperation with industry, notably the digital industry (the GAFAM). It is accompanied by so-called fact-checkers and “independent” NGOs providing “independent” expertise, but which are in fact funded by those same European institutions or industries, or are based on their work and definitions.

By Colin Meier, independent citizen journalist and Germany correspondent for BAM!

[1] https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/telegram-verfassungsschutz-corona-leugner-101.html

[2] https://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/telegram-was-die-politik-gegen-die-gefaehrliche-chat-app-unternehmen-kann-a-7245e6fd-b057-41b9-9b50-69095458cd54

[3] https://www.rnd.de/politik/querdenker-bedrohen-ramelow-unbekannte-stellen-grablicht-vor-sein-haus-R3KCYXYCUZDVZATVHQTVE72GHU.html

[4] https://www.neulandrebellen.de/2020/11/was-war-in-leipzig-los-im-gespraech-mit-robert-fleischer-exomagazin-tv/

[5] Read the BAM article: https://bam.news/en/articles/facebook-goes-after-opposition-networks

[6] https://youtu.be/8iPugrhd77k?t=1415: Filmed by independent journalist Martin Lejeune, the passage between 23’35’’ and 36’00’’ shows a few dozen rioters who were waiting in Goethestraße, west of Augustusplatz and Georgring, where most of the demonstrators were gathered. They took advantage of the procession setting off down Georgring heading north, towards Leipzig central station, to mingle with the few demonstrators in Goethestraße, then overtook them by running through the small park behind the opera house and burst out at the head of the main procession on Georgring. After displaying symbols associated with the far right and provoking a few police officers for about ten minutes by setting off firecrackers and throwing empty bottles, thus creating the ideal images to discredit the demonstration, which were subsequently played on a loop by the mainstream media, they disappeared as suddenly as they had appeared.

[7] https://de.indymedia.org/sites/default/files/2020/10/54182.jpg

[8] https://tube.kenfm.de/w/ipPRhsWSHuiaKxowA2q6Xc?start=3m23s

[9] https://www.polizei.sachsen.de/de/MI_2020_76587.htm

[10] https://www.lvz.de/Leipzig/Polizeiticker/Polizeiticker-Leipzig/Anschlag-auf-Reisebus-mit-Corona-Demonstranten-in-Connewitz-Soko-LinX-ermittelt

[11] https://youtu.be/gEMKW4lQkyE?t=4200

[12] https://youtu.be/oBIqxSpUN_U?list=PLDKD8WmRJm4tfb44kW6nSPhTK9u10_XLx&t=979

[13] https://www.saarbruecker-zeitung.de/pm/tankstellen-mord-in-idar-oberstein-anklage-noch-dieses-jahr_aid-64102337

[14] https://news-trier.de/themen-des-tages/live-ticker-zur-pressekonferenz-toetungsdelikt-20-jaehriger-in-idar-oberstein-erschossen,49469.html

[15] Read the BAM article: https://bam.news/en/investigation/episode-2-the-compact-network-manipulates-opinion

[16] https://www.amadeu-antonio-stiftung.de/en/about-us/our-partners/

[17] https://www.amadeu-antonio-stiftung.de/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/taetigkeitsbericht_aas_2020.pdf

[18] https://www.amadeu-antonio-stiftung.de/mord-in-idar-oberstein-taeter-zeigt-sich-rechtsalternativ-radikalisiert/

[19] https://www.tagesspiegel.de/gesellschaft/panorama/entsetzen-ueber-mord-in-idar-oberstein-berlins-innensenator-geisel-warnt-vor-neuer-dimension-von-gewalt-und-hass/27630886.html

[20] https://taz.de/Toedlicher-Schuss-in-Idar-Oberstein/!5797982/

[21] https://de.euronews.com/2021/09/21/rechte-feiern-mord-in-idar-oberstein-als-notwehr

[22] Just type “Idar-Oberstein” and “murder” into a search engine.

[23] https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/jstark-waffenbastler-ikone-ueber-halle-attentaeter-und-waffen-aus-dem-3d-drucker-a-cb0a3d1b-4173-4b22-a82c-18b6ea9efbb9

[24] https://www.spiegel.de/thema/angriff_in_halle_saale/

[25] https://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/sachsen-anhalt-schuesse-in-halle-mindestens-zwei-tote-a-1290701.html

[26] https://twitter.com/holnburger/status/1470737046486532102

[27] https://cemas.io/team/: The expert cited by der Spiegel, Josef Holnburger, works for CeMAS, the new “research” institute of Pia Lamberty, whom we already discussed in the first 2 episodes on COMPACT. As if by chance, we also find Jan Rathje there, likewise a member of COMPACT and an employee of the Amadeu-Antonio-Stiftung. Also read the BAM articles on COMPACT: here and here.

[28] https://de.rt.com/inland/128051-roland-woller-cdu-fordert-schnellprozesse/

[29] https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/corona-protest-in-sachsen-politiker-verurteilen-fackel-aufmarsch-bei-petra-koepping-a-3daeab8a-f115-47a7-a2f1-afa7eed0e856

[30] https://www.tagesschau.de/investigativ/abgeordnete-drohschreiben-101.html

[31] https://www.rtbf.be/info/monde/detail_allemagne-une-manifestation-contre-les-restrictions-anti-covid-visant-une-elue-provoque-l-emoi?id=10891617

[32] https://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/inland/seehofer-fackel-aufmarsch-erinnert-an-dunkelste-kapitel-17667245.html

[33] https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/zentrum-fuer-politische-schoenheit-aktion-gegen-hoecke-soll-ermittlungen-ausgeloest-haben-a-1261071.html

[34] https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/umstrittene-kunstaktion-in-bornhagen-antifa-demo-vor-100.html

[35] https://de.rt.com/inland/128051-roland-woller-cdu-fordert-schnellprozesse/

[36] Ibid.

[37] Ibid.

[38] https://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/telegram-was-die-politik-gegen-die-gefaehrliche-chat-app-unternehmen-kann-a-7245e6fd-b057-41b9-9b50-69095458cd54

[39] Ibid.