It seems that it has never been as valuable as today: the protection of privacy and the right to freedom of speech. While this is in general terms appreciated, it is in reality often treated in a rather casual manner, already since a long time. Leaving control of letters, telephone tapping and other intelligence measures aside (often indicating the stupidity of intelligence) – well-known also from the 1960s and 70s in the Federal Republic of Germany, it is today very common that enterprises like Google, Amazon but as well many others less known companies including banks and health insurances hack into our data or use so-called private data for their own purposes, in many cases forcing the customer to accept such use as otherwise service provision is suspended. The double-edged sword of GPS-data may also be mentioned: security cameras, magically controlling the traffic and without which probably traffic would not be possibly or only for the price of an increased number of accidents and destructive distractions. Part of the development is the shift from political, system-power oriented control executed by the state towards system-economic control, executed by corporations.
****
However, there is another matter that we should never forget: as much as we may value privacy and freedom of speech we should not forget something that may we may call obligation to publicity and obligation to control speech in the interest of general interest and society at large.
The reason for issuing this is on the one hand of general nature, but it is not least given by recent incidents in the Federal Republic of Germany, in particular on the tiny island of Sylt – a hotspot of posh people, showing-off their wealth and most recently also showing-off their true political opinion. It seems to be unexpected for many; however, it may also be seen as uncovering political opinions that are commonly veiled behind the image of a “well-educated class”.
In short, what happened in Kampen on the island of Sylt, taken from an article published in the taz:
BERLIN taz | New details about the scandalous video from Sylt paint a clearer picture of the party group. Their chanting of xenophobic slogans at Whitsun had caused outrage. The taz has now obtained further holiday videos of those involved. They paint a picture of a milieu that flaunts, brags and celebrates – and probably thinks it can afford to be racist.
At the end of last week, a short video was leaked that was shot on Whitsun Sunday in the high-class club “Pony” in Kampen on the island of Sylt. A group of young people sing the words “Foreigners out, Germany to the Germans” to Gigi D’Agostino’s song “L’Amour toujours”. One man raises his right arm, waves his hand and forms a moustache with two fingers – obviously a Hitler salute.
(Baeck, Jean-Philipp/Fromm, Anne, 2024: Champagner, Rolex und Rassismus; in: taz. 26. 5. 2024, 20:12 Uhr; https://taz.de/Neue-Details-zu-Skandal-Video-von-Sylt/!6010089/; 29/05/2024; machine translation)
After the original incidents during Pentecost other incidences, racist attacks have been reported from the island; in other regions in Germany but as well in other countries in Europe reports about comparably events, behaviour and incidences had been published since then.
Much could be said about racism, right wing and fascist movements and obviously as well about counter movements – fortunately these antifascist movements do exist with some strength and should not be underestimated. Nevertheless, what is of interest here is something different. In the follow up of the Pentecost-incidents the courts had been employed by investigating these obviously criminal activities. At the same time, something else is issued and brought to court: the question is basically if the publication of unpixellated photos and videos and as well if the publication of names of people who had been without any doubt identified as actors of these right wing and racist activities is legal. Videos that had been posted on social media had been in fact published by participants themselves. Some of the racist activists lost already their job, some see themselves and even their family members under attack. This is surely “sad” for the individuals in question. But bringing this to court, seems a bit weird, doesn’t it. – Finally, foreigners had been collectively insulted, slandered – their reputation was not taken into consideration by those who now spill crocodile tears and complain about being attacked; and these attacks are not even from those who attacked them.
Reference is made to reference to §§ 22, 23 of the German Art Copyright Act (KUG), one lawyer suggesting that the publication is not legal:
The consent of the persons depicted is only given for publication in a smaller group of persons (see Berger, Luisa: Müssen die Personen auf dem “Sylt-Video” verpixelt werden?: Öffentliches Interesse oder Prangerwirkung? in: Legal Tribune Online, 27.05.2024; https://www.lto.de/persistent/a_id/54635/; 29/05/2024)
Berger also discusses the applicability of § 23 Abs. 1 Nr. 1 (KUG): seeing the videos as historical documents, different rules apply and a publication is in this perspective legal.
Such discussion has surely some justification … or we should invent a more appropriate term: it is rightyfied. But right as legal instance, i.e. lawfulness, is not necessarily a matter of justice and it must be asked if racist statements, explicit or implicit calls for violence and even self-aggrandising displays of wealth in a society characterised by public and private poverty are no longer a matter of public safety instead of being punished – or concealed – as individual offences. Behrens – with reference to Marc-Oliver Srocke – also addresses an aspect that goes far beyond this: for Srocke
the historical event lies in the fact that people feel as safe as this “horrible party society” in Kampen at a basically open event and despite the recognisable production of mobile phone recordings, and shout xenophobic and racist slogans in a pub. “The pictures do not show a private party that got slightly out of hand, but document alarming conditions in our society. Identifying press coverage is therefore permissible.” (machine translation)
Isn’t it even a necessity, and isn’t even the publication of the names necessary? In other words, shouldn’t we speak about public responsibility; and shouldn’t it be forbidden to disseminate dangerous and damaging statements under the cover of a veil of privacy? Isn’t the loss of the public sphere and public responsibility a major cause of the emergence of populism and all its excesses?