US State Department Report: European Nations Grapple with Significant Freedom of Speech and Media Challenges
Germany, United Kingdom and France are very keen to punish people for their words online.
US Department of State’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor publishes annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices – the Human Rights Report – on all countries receiving assistance and all United Nations member states. The report covers internationally recognized human rights, including freedom of expression and media freedom, freedom of religion and belief, and many others. The US State Department's assessments are based on information obtained from governments, research, the media, international organizations, and non-governmental organizations.
The report notes that the governments of countries where human rights violations have been identified make considerable efforts to conceal any wrongdoing. As a result, there are often few witnesses, or they are intimidated and prevented from sharing what they know. On the other hand, individuals and groups opposed to the government may provide exaggerated or distorted information, but the report acknowledges that governments do the same with regard to individuals and groups opposed to them. In any case, the US State Department affirms that it has relied on reliable and verified information.
U.S. Department of State’s report covers human rights in dozens of countries around the world. No serious restrictions on freedom of expression were observed in European countries such as Estonia, Iceland, Latvia, Finland, and Belgium. According to the report, Poland is an exception, where media independence has increased and proceedings allegedly used to silence individuals who expressed critical opinions have been terminated. However, the report highlights a smaller or greater level of restrictions on freedom of expression and press freedom in too many European countries. Germany, United Kingdom, and France are at the forefront.
In Germany, there are increasingly fewer opportunities to express oneself freely
According to a report by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the human rights situation in Germany has deteriorated over the past year. Serious human rights problems include freedom of expression and crime and violence motivated by anti-Semitism. Although the German constitution should guarantee freedom of expression, including for journalists and the media, the government has imposed restrictions on freedom of expression for several groups it considers extreme. For example, we have reported on how Germany's security service labeled the country's largest opposition party, the AfD, as extremist, and the government coalition is discussing a complete ban on the party.
Social media platforms are required to assess and restrict so-called illegal content, and they are obliged to report hate crimes committed online to the criminal police. In addition, social media platforms were required to remove so-called hate speech within 24 hours or face substantial fines. However, what was written online was treated in exactly the same way as if it had been said face to face.
As a result, German law enforcement agencies, such as the federal criminal police, have been conducting regular raids on homes, confiscating people's devices, questioning suspects and prosecuting individuals for their words. According to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), 17,007 hate crimes were recorded in the country last year, compared to only 8,585 in 2019. Most of these so-called hate crimes are related to posts published online. According to the authorities, the penalties were imposed for messages that incited racial hatred, supported Nazism or denied the Holocaust. Not only were the authors of the posts held accountable, but also those who repeated or shared them.
In light of all this, large-scale police operations in which the homes of hundreds of people are searched at the same time are no longer uncommon in Germany. For example, in early March last year, ahead of Women's Day, the police raided the homes of 45 people in an alleged effort to combat misogyny on the internet. More specifically, the authorities accused the individuals of promoting or threatening sexual violence against women, as well as making inappropriate comments or insulting female politicians. The state has continued similar operations this year, for example in June, when the homes of 170 people were searched on suspicion of insulting politicians online or spreading and inciting hatred. The number of such searches and arrests has increased significantly in Germany recently. We have also covered some cases at Freedom Research, for example, here, here, and here.
Mass immigration has fueled anti-Semitism
According to a report by the U.S. Department of State, the number of serious crimes, acts of violence, and threats of violence motivated by anti-Semitism increased in Germany last year.
According to the German Interior Ministry, more than 3,200 anti-Semitic crimes were recorded in the first nine months of 2024, compared to approximately 1,600 crimes in the same period in 2022. The ministry linked the increase to the escalating violence in the Middle East.
The German government attributed most of the anti-Semitic acts to neo-Nazis or other extremist groups or individuals. The German police often implicitly referred to the perpetrators as "right-wing extremists," especially when the perpetrator could not be identified.
However, Jewish organizations also highlighted anti-Semitic behavior amongst Muslim youth, especially after the October 2023 attacks and the subsequent war in Gaza. Studies by the University of Hamburg showed that among young people aged 16 to 21, Muslim immigrants were much more likely to support anti-Semitic views than native Germans or immigrants from other backgrounds. According to the studies, the massive immigration of population groups that were more likely to hold anti-Semitic beliefs is therefore an important factor contributing to anti-Semitism in Germany.
In France, freedom of expression depends on the context
The report notes that in France, serious restrictions on freedom of expression, including through the application or threat of criminal or civil law, are among the significant human rights concerns.
As in Germany, the French constitution guarantees freedom of expression and of the press, but with some restrictions. While it is reportedly possible to criticize the government publicly or in private, incitement to racial or religious hatred, whether verbal or physical, is prohibited. Statements that promote such hatred or crimes against humanity or deny the Holocaust are considered illegal. However, when it comes to criticizing the government and politicians, the reality may be different. For example, there are reports that making jokes at the expense of the president can result in an investigation for "hate speech" or "public insult" and a large fine. In other words, freedom of expression in France seems to depend on the context. A US report finds that "hate speech" published online targeting public sector employees, politicians, journalists, or children could be punished with up to five years in prison and a substantial fine. Crimes against other citizens are punishable by three years of imprisonment and a fine.
In addition, the authorities’ powers to block websites deemed to incite hatred and ultimately to shut them down were simplified. For example, the French Council of State has confirmed the decision to close down the right-wing TV channel C8, and the channel's most famous presenter, Cyril Hanouna, a French citizen of Lebanese origin, has been accused of "rolling out the red carpet for right-wing extremist ideas."
In the United Kingdom, censorship is part of everyday life for the British
In United Kingdom, the report confirms that there are problems with serious restrictions on freedom of expression, with criminal or civil penalties or threats of such penalties being imposed for certain statements. Freedom of expression and of the press are generally guaranteed by the law. However, the state imposes significant restrictions on political speech that it considers hateful or offensive.
Local authorities have the right to restrict freedom of expression in designated areas and certain restricted zones, such as around abortion clinics. These restrictions on freedom of expression may include prohibitions on influencing other persons in a restricted area, even praying or protesting in silence. We have also dealt with such cases at Freedom Research and described "thought crimes" for which people have been convicted or where the police have had to apologize.
In the United Kingdom, hate speech against persons on the basis of their skin color, race, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, or sexual orientation is prohibited. Threatening or abusive communication intended to harass, intimidate or disturb a person is also prohibited. Such statements are punishable by a fine, imprisonment or both.
A report by the U.S. Department of State highlights the witch hunts that followed last summer's protests in Southport. As a reminder, on July 29 last year, Axel Rudakubana, a 17-year-old of Rwandan origin but born in Wales, murdered three girls at a children's dance class in Southport and stabbed several others, many of whom were taken to hospital with serious injuries. The tragedy was like a trigger, unleashing the pent-up frustration over mass immigration onto the streets in protests that at times turned violent.
The government then called on online platforms to censor statements that it described as false information or hate speech. Attorney General Stephen Parkinson threatened to prosecute and imprison anyone who shared, repeated or amplified messages that were false, threatening or incited racial or religious hatred. The same promise was made by Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who vowed to prosecute hateful speech on social media. Many were arrested for speaking out online about the attack and its motives. For example, 28-year-old Jordan Parlour was sentenced to 20 months in prison for inciting violence on Facebook. 42-year-old Lucy Connolly was sentenced to 31 months in prison for expressing her outrage about the attack on social media platform X.
Many organizations and media outlets that defend freedom of speech have criticized the government for such harsh restrictions on freedom of speech and have stated that British law enforcement agencies are using the law as a weapon against those whose political views are unpalatable to those in power. The attacks in Southport were described as a severe example of government censorship, but despite this, censorship is becoming increasingly common in the UK, often targeting political speech. For example, in July last year, a man was sentenced to eight weeks in prison for posting a meme that suggested a link between migrants and knife crime.
Online Safety Act restricts free speech
UK authorities, such as Ofcom (The Office of Communications), have the right to monitor all forms of communication to detect speech deemed "illegal." The Online Safety Act, which came into force last year, has significantly expanded Ofcom's powers to include US media and technology companies with a significant number of British users, regardless of whether they have a business in the UK or not. Under the law, companies must submit a risk assessment to Ofcom under threat of fines and penalties, proving that their site complies with the requirements of the Online Safety Act. Social media platforms are required to proactively check that content posted on their sites does not contain harmful or illegal content. The same applies to search engines where users can search for information from more than one website. In addition to large web platforms, the law also applies to providers of user-to-user communication, such as small hobby forums, which the government considers to be "small but risky services." A report by the U.S. Department of State states that such legislation could reduce or completely eliminate effective encryption on platforms and, as a result, user privacy.
The U.S. report also notes that freedom of the press was restricted during court proceedings. For example, a UK court forced the American magazine The New Yorker to block British subscribers from accessing an article published online about an ongoing court case.
Strict hate speech laws also apply in Scotland, where it is prohibited to incite hatred through threatening or abusive behavior and the dissemination of such material. In the British Virgin Islands, however, it is a criminal offense to send abusive messages via computer, punishable by up to 14 years in prison and a fine. The law applies to messages that are considered seriously offensive or threatening, or that are sent with the intention of causing alarm or distress.