The alleged first murder victim of a corona denier in Germany is called Alexander W., 20 years old. The student, who also works at a gas station, has to die because the customer Mario N. is so whipped up in his hatred of the pandemic policy that he cannot bear to be made aware of the mask requirement. He leaves the sales room, returns a short time later with a revolver and pulls the trigger.
Anyone who wants to know where this tunnel vision can arise, where N. and other pandemic deniers and lateral thinkers agree with each other in their convictions and increasingly radicalize them, inevitably ends up at Telegram. The Internet messenger service is the platform of choice both in the conspiracy scene and among right-wing extremists to spread their stories and closed worldviews. After the murder of Alexander W., the crime is celebrated in some forums, calls for further murders, apparently without criminal consequences. It doesn’t have to be, explains Internet lawyer Matthias C. Kettemann from the Leibniz Institute for Media Research in an interview with ntv.de. Taking action against hatred and agitation on Telegram, says Kettemann, who teaches Internet law in Innsbruck as a professor, would not be that difficult.
ntv.de: Telegram appears like a reservoir for right-wing agitators, aluminum hat wearers and oathers. Isn’t that going to be dangerous for the platform’s reputation?
Matthias Kettemann: Telegram is trying a balancing act. At the moment they hardly moderate, but they take action against the content of people who want to exploit their platform. Cyber criminals or spam, they constantly let their security algorithms run over it, that’s what a platform has to do today. YouTube and Facebook are also committed to certain values, they moderate much more, even if you can still find enough controversy there.
Telegram doesn’t do that….
…. and advertises itself precisely with this: We do not forbid anyone to shut up here. Anyone looking for conspiracy stories knows that they will find what they are looking for here, the scenes are well networked with one another – also with right-wing and anti-Semitic groups. Now the operators of the platform have to navigate between the claim to freedom that makes them so attractive and the risk that states will react with restrictions because the law is violated. The balance is no longer right. Telegram has clearly gone the extra mile.
Professor Matthias C. Kettemann from the Leibniz Institute for Media Research teaches Internet law at the University of Innsbruck.
(Photo: HBI 2020)
But with what consequence? It is often said: The groups in which hate messages are spread are all “closed”, that is, not public, which is why this cannot be prosecuted. Is that correct?
No. What society or a messenger service defines as “not public” has nothing to do with what is “not public” by law. These closed groups, which can only be entered upon request, can have up to 200,000 members at Telegram, which corresponds to the population of Kassel. A chat whose messages would reach all of Kassel could hardly be legally classified as “private”.
What does “private” mean? Let’s say someone denies the Holocaust at a birthday party – 30 guests. Is that private or public?
As long as it is a limited, known group of people – i.e. 30 good friends – it is private. Denial of the Holocaust would still be punishable, even in a private setting. The sentence is only lower.
The same in a Telegram chat group with 30 good friends?
It would be the same – not public, but still punishable.
In a closed Telegram channel, which you can only enter by invitation, with 200,000 people?
Open or closed – that is not relevant with this amount. The statement would be public and punishable.
Then what makes it so difficult to prosecute people who glorify violence or even call for murder on Telegram?
Legally this is definitely possible, the problem is the technical implementation. The agency must try to find out via Telegram who this hounding person is. Telegram is based in Dubai and has no delivery address there and the authorities therefore have no contact person. You simply don’t reach anyone.
How could it go then? Blocking Telegram completely would probably not be a solution.
Blocking the domain is theoretically possible, but it would be the last resort, really the very last option. They are only used against sites whose business model is already illegal, but not against those that contain illegal content, among other things. Simply taking Telegram offline in Germany would be like closing a knife factory because knives are also used to kill people. In the area of communication in particular, it is very important that the state is committed to open, free communication.
So what’s the alternative?
It would go through the Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG). That was passed in 2017, and one of its core concerns is that such a company must have a delivery address in Germany. Even Facebook and Twitter had German authorities run aground for years before the law came into force. It was then said that the complaint had to be sent to Dublin, the content had to be translated first, or: “Oops, we didn’t get the request at all.” It was therefore clear: the local delivery address would become a central point in NetzDG.
In addition, the NetzDG also says that the platform operators must remove reported content that is clearly illegal within 24 hours and content that is not so clearly illegal within a week. That is why the easiest way to better regulate Telegram would be to ensure that the platform falls under the NetzDG – at least with its public communication channels – just like YouTube, Twitter or Facebook. Telegram is currently not doing that. A fundamental mistake when this law was developed was to leave out platforms for individual communication, including Whatsapp. But they soon changed, if you can put all of Kassel in a group, you are no longer an individual platform, even if private chats continue to take place.
Then the solution would be to revise the NetzDG?
It could even be applied to Telegram now, the judicial authorities would have to interpret it a little further. The Federal Office of Justice is already taking two proceedings against Telegram. A revision of the NetzDG would of course be safest, but it will also take a little longer. It is important to focus on the main actors. You can’t follow every swear word, you should concentrate on threats, for example. There are already some public prosecutors in Germany that are very active in this area. Google and Apple are of course very powerful: if they threaten to take Telegram out of their app stores in Germany, something will happen very quickly. So politics should also have an impact on these companies.
Frauke Niemeyer spoke to Matthias C. Kettemann