The Censorship Industrial Complex in Germany and Europe: A Threat to Free Speech and Democratic Debate, By Richard Miller (Londonistan)
The censorship of a post by Manuel Ostermann, deputy head of the German police union (DPolG), on August 27, 2025, as reported by Remix News, exemplifies a growing censorship industrial complex in Germany and Europe, driven by the European Union's Digital Services Act (DSA). Ostermann's post, an excerpt from his book Germany is No Longer Safe, warned of a dystopian 2050 where Arab clans dominate cities, Sharia law prevails, and practices like child marriage and female genital mutilation (FGM) become widespread due to unchecked mass immigration. The EU's decision to block this post across the continent, likely under the DSA, signals a troubling escalation of speech suppression, targeting a public official with firsthand insight into crime trends. I argue that the censorship industrial complex, enabled by the DSA and national laws like Germany's NetzDG, stifles critical debate on immigration's societal impacts, erodes democratic principles, and risks producing the very extremism it seeks to curb, with implications for Australia and the broader West.
The term "censorship industrial complex," popularised by critics like Matt Taibbi, refers to a network of government agencies, tech companies, NGOs, and media that collaborate to control online discourse. In Europe, this complex is formalised through the DSA, enacted in February 2024, which mandates platforms to remove "illegal content," including hate speech and disinformation, under threat of hefty fines. Germany's NetzDG, introduced in 2018, set a precedent by requiring social media platforms to delete reported content within 24 hours or face penalties up to €50 million. These laws, combined with self-regulatory codes like the EU's 2018 Code of Practice on Disinformation, signed by platforms like X, Google, and Meta, create a framework where private companies act as proxies for state censorship, often pre-emptively removing content to avoid fines.
Ostermann's case illustrates this complex in action. His post, which predicted dire consequences of mass immigration, Arab clans dominating cities, Sharia law, and rising crime, was removed from X across Europe, likely under DSA provisions targeting "harmful" content. Despite his role as a police official with direct experience of clan crime, as documented in a 2025 ZDF documentary Kriminelle Clans in Deutschland, his warnings were deemed unacceptable. The censorship was not isolated; it reflects a pattern where dissenting voices on immigration, from police officials to ordinary citizens, face suppression. For instance, a 2024 Human Rights Watch report criticised NetzDG for fostering over-censorship, as platforms err on the side of caution to avoid penalties, chilling free speech.
In Australia, similar mechanisms are emerging. The 2024 Online Safety Act empowers the eSafety Commissioner to order content removal, with fines up to $782,500 per day for non-compliance. While Australia's laws are less draconian than the DSA, they mirror the European trend of outsourcing censorship to tech companies, raising concerns about a nascent censorship industrial complex. Posts on X in 2025, such as those by @eugyppius1, highlight German prosecutors targeting X employees for resisting speech crime investigations, underscoring the global reach of this complex.
Ostermann's censored post was grounded in observable trends, lending credence to his warnings and exposing the folly of suppressing them. He predicted Arab clans dominating German cities, a claim supported by a 2025 Remix News report of 100 Lebanese clan members battling in Heiligenhaus, with machetes and knives, resulting in five serious injuries. The ZDF documentary detailed how these clans, primarily from Muslim-majority countries like Lebanon and Syria, have infiltrated police and government, creating "no-go areas" where officers fear to tread. Germany's Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA) reported a 14% rise in clan-related crime from 2020 to 2024, with 1,200 cases in 2024 alone.
On Sharia law, Ostermann's concerns align with a 2025 Criminological Research Institute study, which found 67.9% of young Muslims in Germany prioritise Quranic rules over state laws, and 47% support a theocracy. While not yet widespread, Sharia-based practices are evident in isolated communities, as seen in Hamburg protests for a caliphate. Regarding women's rights, a 2025 Human Rights Watch report noted restrictions on women's mobility in migrant-heavy neighbourhoods, with some requiring male accompaniment, echoing Middle Eastern norms. The number of FGM victims in Germany rose 44% since 2017 to 68,000, per Minister Franziska Giffey, driven by migration from Eritrea, Somalia, and Nigeria. Child marriages, affecting 819 minors in 2019 (98% with migration backgrounds), are also rising, despite legal bans.
These trends, also observed in Australia, where 2024 reports noted 1,200 FGM cases in migrant communities and a 10% increase in forced marriages since 2020, validate Ostermann's warnings. Australia's 125,079-person asylum backlog and high immigration (one million net migrants in 2022-2023) mirror Germany's challenges, suggesting similar risks of cultural and security issues if unchecked.
Censoring Ostermann's post does not refute his predictions, but amplifies public distrust and fuels extremism. A 2023 Allensbach Institute survey found only 40% of Germans feel they can "freely express" opinions, the lowest since 1953, reflecting a chilling effect from laws like NetzDG and the DSA. Posts on X, such as @hoyer_kat's, warn that suppressing immigration debates, as Cologne's parties did in 2025, risks backfiring by empowering far-Right groups like Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), which gained 18% in 2025 polls. The AfD's rise, fuelled by anti-migrant sentiment after incidents like the 2024 Solingen terror attack, shows how censorship stifles moderate voices, leaving space for radicals; itself I believe a jolly good thing.
In Australia, censorship risks similar outcomes. The 2024 Online Safety Act's vague "harmful content" definitions could suppress discussions on immigration's impact, as seen in 2025 protests against Labor's migration policies. Polls (54-77% favouring lower immigration) indicate public frustration, yet media and government often dismiss critics as xenophobic, mirroring Europe's approach. This could embolden populist movements, as seen with One Nation's 9% vote share in 2025; another good thing.
The censorship industrial complex also undermines democracy by outsourcing speech regulation to unaccountable tech firms. The DSA's requirement for platforms to self-report disinformation, as noted in a 2021 Heinrich Böll Stiftung report, creates a system where companies like Meta pre-emptively censor to avoid fines, as seen in a 2024 case where Meta removed fake quotes attributed to politician Renate Künast. In Australia, the eSafety Commissioner's 2025 order to remove anti-immigration posts on X sparked backlash, with users like @asymmetricinfo arguing it produces distrust in institutions.
To counter the censorship industrial complex, Germany and Europe must reform the DSA and NetzDG to prioritise transparency and judicial oversight. A post-takedown review process, as suggested in a 2024 DeGruyter Brill article, could balance security with free expression. Australia should learn from this, amending the Online Safety Act to require independent appeals for content removals. Both regions need open debates on immigration, as Ostermann's post attempted, to address public concerns without censorship. A Trump-like leader, could challenge bureaucratic elites in Australia, promoting policies like a migration pause to ease housing and crime pressures, as Canada did in 2024.
Critics argue that censoring posts like Ostermann's prevents hate speech and social unrest, citing Germany's 140% rise in anti-Islamic crimes in 2023. However, suppression produces resentment, as seen in AfD's electoral gains. Open debate, not censorship, allows societies to address tensions constructively. Others claim the DSA protects vulnerable groups, like migrants facing FGM or forced marriage. Yet, silencing warnings about these practices, as Ostermann highlighted, delays solutions, as Germany's 68,000 FGM cases show. A balanced approach, enforcing laws against illegal practices while protecting speech, better serves justice.
The censorship of Manuel Ostermann's post under the DSA exposes a dangerous censorship industrial complex in Germany and Europe, where governments and tech firms suppress critical voices on immigration's societal impacts. Supported by evidence of rising clan crime, Sharia influence, and practices like FGM and child marriage, Ostermann's warnings deserve debate, not deletion. Australia, with its own migration challenges, risks following suit with laws like the Online Safety Act. Censorship fuels distrust and extremism, undermining democracy. Both nations need bold leaders to dismantle this complex, restore free speech, and address immigration's real challenges before they escalate, as Ostermann predicts, into a societal crisis by 2050.
Comments