Is Europe’s “defensive democracy” stifling dissent? The raid on novelist CJ Hopkins for a satirical book cover and a surge in German online crime enquiries (8,500+) show how hate speech laws are now targeting critics of government policy. This analysis warns that rising censorship and banning of NGOs (46 in France) risks empowering the very extremists they are meant to control.
Three armed police officers showed up at US novelist CJ Hopkins’ Berlin flat early on November 26. They interrogated him and his spouse, seized his computer, and provided a search warrant. The supposed danger to the rule of law in Germany?
A self-published book’s cover. Hopkins, a fierce left-wing opponent of Covid-19 policies, satirically criticised what he saw as authoritarian trends in Germany by superimposing a pale swastika behind a face mask. He was found guilty last year of “disseminating Nazi propaganda” because he had posted pictures of the cover on Twitter. The police have now returned to his residence despite this earlier conviction, ostensibly to look into the cover’s publishing.
Were this an isolated incident, it could be dismissed as a regrettable overreaction, the kind that occurs even in freedom-loving democracies.
In Tennessee, where I live, a man recently spent 37 days in jail for posting a sarcastic Trump meme on Facebook; the charges were later dropped. But in European countries like Germany and France, the Hopkins case is far from an exception. And unlike in the US, there is hardly any public protest against the increasing restrictions on freedom of expression.
Resistance to the political consensus that European democracies must become ever more “defensive” in order to defeat their enemies is also largely absent. But for Europeans who can be persuaded by facts and reason, the evidence of creeping censorship is now too plentiful to continue denying the danger.
Given Germany’s past, it is evident why the constitutional system is intended to prevent tyranny. However, the robust democracy’s armament is being employed indiscriminately, causing collateral harm to the basic ideals it is designed to preserve. This is especially visible in the internet realm, where authorities are targeting thousands of Germans for expressing critical opinions on migration, COVID-19 policies, the Israel-Gaza conflict, and politicians.
In March 2022, the president of the Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA) said categorically that the state will respond to online intolerance with real-world intolerance: “Anyone who posts hate speech must expect the police to show up at their door.” The New York Times investigated German papers in 2022 and discovered over 8,500 pending enquiries regarding internet remarks. Since 2018, at least 1,000 individuals have been prosecuted or sentenced.
This tradition continues to this day. In February 2025, many Americans were surprised to see a 60 Minutes story that followed German police officers and prosecutors as they probed “online crimes.” Prosecutors explained with a smirk that publishing or just “liking” fraudulent or objectionable content—such as hate speech, slander, falsified statements, or personal insults—could constitute a felony. Even calling a politician a “moron” or ridiculing someone with the excrement emoji may result in a house search.
Those affected also include climate activists , pro-Palestinian activists , and political satirists . Furthermore, the right to peaceful protest is being severely restricted: since October 7th, pro-Palestinian demonstrations have been banned in many German cities . Originally, German laws on freedom of expression were intended to protect minorities and democracy.
Now, however, they often serve to suppress criticism of the government and politicians. Ironically, they sometimes target precisely those minorities for whom they were originally created. Iris Hefets , a left-wing radical, anti-Zionist Israeli Jew living in Berlin, has been arrested multiple times for peacefully protesting alone against what she calls genocide in Gaza. Muslims are also regularly prosecuted for participating in pro-Palestinian protests .
Thus, a predominantly white German administrative elite ultimately decides which minorities deserve protection—and which are subject to prosecution. And this is based on laws that were actually meant to protect them from the intolerance of the majority.
Germany isn’t alone in this. Even France, a bulwark of human and civil rights, has recently faced enormous constraints on freedom of speech, notwithstanding the ability to “speak, write, and publish freely.” Under Emmanuel Macron, French people’ freedom to organise and mobilise protest has been drastically limited. In several circumstances, Macron sued those who mocked him.
Even more disturbing is the fact that 46 civil society organisations were outlawed by order under Macron’s administration, more than any previous president of the Fifth Republic. Anti-fascist campaigns, anti-immigrant organisations, Muslim civil rights organisations, conservative Catholic organisations, and even environmental groups have all been impacted.
Several were prohibited for “language offences,” such as harsh criticism of the administration or broad categories of hate speech. They were also banned for allegedly failing to erase nasty user comments from their social media pages. In other words, communal punishment.
The expanding list of NGOs prohibited by decree sends a chilling message to civil society: anyone who deviates from the official line or republican norms might face fines. Many organisations are now faced with a choice: speak up and risk repression, or stay silent and hope for better times. Neither approach is appropriate for a government that views itself as a champion of human rights.
No assistance can be expected from European institutions, despite the fact that the European Convention on Human Rights and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights both prioritise freedom of expression. The European Court of Human Rights provides minimal protection for remarks it considers radical (blasphemy is punishable). And the EU is actively working on more limitations, such as a proposal to designate hate speech as a “EU crime,” which would extend language criminalisation and harsher punishments to all 27 member states.
Some Europeans may view these interventions as the cost of a more tolerant society, free of intolerance for minorities and the growth of right-wing populist groups. However, little evidence shows that this “defensive” approach will deliver on its promises. Extreme views and intolerance are on the rise in Europe, despite an ever-expanding network of hate speech regulations.
In 2025, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution recorded a significant increase in the number of right-wing extremists, from 20,000 in 2015 to over 50,000 in 2024. Right-wing extremist crimes, including violent offences, increased by 47 percent over the previous year. And this isn’t just a German issue; in 2024, the European Parliament predicted a “dramatic increase in discrimination, hate crime, and hate speech” across the EU.
Ironically, studies suggest that more freedom of speech is associated with greater tolerance for various ethnic groups and better protection for minorities. In reality, free speech in democracies frequently serves as a safety valve, lowering tensions and preventing bloodshed.
Laws banning hate speech frequently achieve the reverse of their intended outcome: they exacerbate radicalisation and the proclivity for violence, incite more hate speech, and even strengthen support for the politicians they are supposed to combat.
Far-right politicians such as Marine Le Pen, Geert Wilders, and Björn Höcke have grown in popularity in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands, despite, and in some cases, as a result of, their hate speech prosecutions.
If these politicians gain power through democratic majorities, the current degradation of free expression will equip them with a ready-made set of weapons to exploit the same limits for their own ends. This situation is now unfolding in the United States, where only the strong protection of the First Amendment is preventing the Trump administration’s worst censoring intentions.
Despite these troubling trends, and the evident collateral harm to free expression, there is little evidence that European democracies are rethinking their illiberal policies.
For all of contemporary Europe’s remarkable achievements, its resilient democracy may serve as a cautionary story rather than a model. The real question now is whether Europe’s harsh approach to freedom of expression poses a larger threat to democracy than the radicals it is supposed to control. The solution to this question will influence not only Europe’s destiny, but the fate of liberal democracy in general.
The author, Jacob Mchangama, is a Danish legal scholar, executive director of the Future of Free Speech Project at Vanderbilt University, and a senior fellow at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.
The article first appeared on IPG.
