{shortcode-06cc61efbaf8d036f752f9c593b4b4075eece38b}

German journalist Melanie Amann said that politicizing free speech regulations restricts discourse while creating artificial viewpoint diversity at a talk on Tuesday afternoon.

Amann compared what she said was overregulation of speech in Germany to the federal government’s focus on Harvard’s campus discourse culture — both of which she criticized for breeding “insecurity” in people who wish to share their opinions.

The talk was hosted by the Center for European Studies, where Amman is serving as a John F. Kennedy Memorial Policy Fellow. Before coming to Harvard, Amman served as editor-in-chief of Der Spiegel, one of the most widely circulated weekly magazines in Germany.

During the talk, Amann criticized Alternative für Deutschland, a far-right political party from her country, for accusing German journalists of not including right-wing viewpoints in their coverage. She compared the party to critics of Harvard, who she said accused the University of being made up of left-wingers “with no diversity of opinion.”

"Both are very much under pressure to be more diverse, which is a difficult demand,” Amann said.

Amann said that aggressive pushes for viewpoint diversity in journalism and educational spaces can worsen the integrity of news coverage and academic dialogue.

“We have to keep in mind who we’re working for,” she said. “Our audience pays us because they believe that we’re doing good reporting. So let’s report for these people, and let’s not be deterred. Let’s not always focus on whether we help some right-wing agenda by reporting about a certain topic.”

After the end of World War II, freedom of speech was formally protected in Article 5 of Germany’s new constitution. But the parliament retains the ability to interpret Article 5 however it desires.

“It basically means that the shape of this very basic human right — freedom of speech — is not defined by the constitution itself, but by simple laws of parliament, which can be changed by a simple majority,” Amann said.

These laws include Section 130 of Germany’s criminal code, which criminalizes the incitement of hatred and prohibits the use of Nazi symbols and propaganda.

Over the past decade, Germany has implemented policies to criminalize online hate speech, which Amann said overwhelms prosecutors and creates legal complexity for big tech companies.

When asked when free speech should be censored in an interview with The Crimson, Amann said, “I think it’s hard to draw the line.”

“That’s what makes regulation so difficult. We have tried to draw a line between hate speech and free speech. The definition of hate speech is unclear. The definition of an insult is unclear, and even legal experts are not always sure,” Amann added.

Benjamin M. Friedman, a Harvard professor of political economy, said both left and right political parties in the U.S. are guilty of selectively supporting speech at Harvard depending on self-interest during the event’s question and answer section.

“The exact same people who are most exercised about freedom of speech today, two and a half years ago, were enforcing what you might call political correctness over what professors are allowed to say in classrooms,” Friedman said.

“It’s clear that none of this conversation in the U.S. has anything to do with views about principle,” he added. “This is about what serves my interest.”

Amann agreed with Friedman, and speculated that selective censorship may worsen in Germany in the future. She said that this is already occurring within the AFD, and the party is growing in influence.

When asked what she learned from her one-month fellowship at Harvard, Amann said it was the pitfalls of artificial viewpoint diversity.

“There is this idea of maintaining a diversity of opinion that I’m witnessing here, to the extent that there’s no counterspeech against absurdities and they’re simply being accepted,” Amann said.

“You need to be able to say what is obviously wrong, biased, or not based on facts,” she added.

A spokesperson for Harvard University did not respond to a request to comment.