In Berlin, the German government has reacted cautiously to sharp criticism from UN Special Rapporteur Irene Khan regarding restrictions on freedom of expression in Germany. Following her visit from January 26 to February 6, 2026, she describes a trend in which state measures, bans, and criminal proceedings are increasingly restricting public debate. She sees particular restrictions in the context of the Middle East conflict, including regulations, prohibited slogans, and interference with public assemblies. At the same time, she warns of growing self-censorship among journalists, academics, activists, and citizens who fear professional, social, or legal repercussions. The German government, however, refers to the still-pending final report and simultaneously emphasizes the legally guaranteed freedom of expression. (epochtimes: 20.03.26)
UN sees freedom of expression restricted in Germany
Khan is not describing a theoretical debate, but a development with concrete consequences. In her assessment, freedom of expression may still exist on paper, but its exercise in everyday life is becoming riskier. This is precisely the core of her criticism. Anyone who has to consider the potential consequences before making a public statement can no longer express themselves freely. Therefore, for the UN, the focus is not only on the law, but above all on actual practice.
The accusation is particularly explosive because it doesn’t come from domestic political opponents, but from within the UN human rights system. Khan sees signs that state authorities are more quick to resort to bans, restrictions, and investigations on controversial issues. This narrows the range of acceptable opinions. At the same time, many people are increasingly under the impression that certain views are best left unsaid. This development weakens public discourse because not only extreme statements, but also uncomfortable positions are less frequently voiced openly.
Criminal Law, Protests, and Bans Exacerbate the Conflict Over Freedom of Expression
At the heart of the criticism is the increasing use of criminal law against political or provocative statements. The state must prosecute incitement to hatred, calls for violence, and antisemitic propaganda. However, Khan criticizes the fact that these interventions now extend further. When authorities and politicians intervene earlier and earlier, the boundaries of what can be said shift. Statements that provoke or shock, but which must initially be tolerated in a free society, then also come under scrutiny.
According to Khan, this is particularly evident in demonstrations and slogans related to the Gaza War. Gatherings have been restricted, and individual statements have been banned. The UN sees a clear pattern emerging from this. The state’s actions are not solely driven by protection against hatred, but also by an increasing control of political speech. The German government has so far avoided a clear substantive response, instead referring to the pending final report. Politically, however, the situation remains sensitive because even the UN is now explicitly acknowledging a restriction of freedom of expression in Germany.