Getting Boomers To Love Germany’s Insane Hate Speech Laws

It’s unlikely the American people will fall for this media trick

CBS wants the Americans to embrace Germany’s insane hate speech laws. On its two marquee Sunday news shows, the network essentially endorsed these draconian laws to “safeguard” democracy. In an interview with Secretary of State Marco Rubio, “Face the Nation” host Margaret Brennan claimed the Nazis “weaponized free speech to commit genocide” and that’s why Germany (and maybe even America) needs censorship. Hours later, 60 Minutes ran a celebratory profile of Germany’s crusade against free speech.

Both instances were incredibly stupid and risible. While these appeals would fail to persuade the majority of Americans, CBS tailor-made these anti-speech pitches with one particular demographic in mind: boomers. The wild claims of the Nazis weaponizing free speech and the 60 Minutes segment appealing to the myth of civil discourse sound reasonable to the elders. Boomers still love 60 Minutes and the Sunday talk shows. They shape their news consumption. If these programs tell the 65 and older crowd that German hate speech laws are necessary, the boomers may believe them.

Margaret Brennan is a particularly dumb, unserious reporter. Her performance at last year’s presidential debate, where she sought to lecture Donald Trump like a misbehaving schoolboy, was typical of her “journalism.” Her comment about the Nazis was particularly idiotic. The Third Reich, as most people know, did not guarantee freedom of speech. Only an AWFL journalist would believe they weaponized free speech. Some defenders, such as an MSNBC producer, said the Nazis’ state-run media apparatus counted as free speech. No one views government statements as “free speech” except those white knighting for Margaret Brennan.

There is a misconception, believed by Germany’s current regime, that the Weimar Republic’s tolerance of free speech empowered the Nazis. In reality, Weimar was far from a civil libertarian’s dream. The laws at the time frequently restricted the speech of the Nazis, Communists, and other political actors. Prominent National Socialists often found themselves in court over their rhetoric. Weimar leaders repeatedly tried to suppress the Nazi movement, including the state government of Prussia banning the SA in 1932. These efforts didn’t work. There are many reasons for how Hitler came to power–generous free speech laws are not one of them.

Unfortunately, Brennan’s idiotic comment can still persuade some of her older audience. Associating free speech with the Nazis will give them pause. They also defer to authority more than younger folks. If the nice lady on television tells them that the bad guys of history weaponized free speech, they may be inclined to believe it.

It likely wasn’t intentional on Brennan’s part. It was more her arrogance and idiocy that made her say such a thing. But it could land with her audience.

The theme of the 60 Minutes pro-hate speech segment was much more intentional. For years, journalists have sought to highlight the “evils” of hate speech. Usually they would interview a “victim” of such dastardly deeds, who would recall how hurt they were to see someone suggest they don’t like immigrants or that certain groups commit more crime. These appeals haven’t really worked. So 60 Minutes reporter Sharyn Alfonsi took a different approach. In her feature on Germany’s laws, the primary selling point is that these rules ensure the country has civil debate and stifles extremists who use bad words.

It’s the perfect pitch for boomers. If you’ve ever talked to older, middle-class people, they will commonly bemoan the state of American discourse. They hate the name-calling and how everything is so damn uncivil. They wish public discourse could return to how they remember it, when Democrats and Republicans got along, polite disagreements defined debates, and no one insulted each other. This isn’t quite how things worked back then, but that’s how it’s remembered. The great civility myth preaches that American politics never knew real rancor until very recent times. Republicans are blamed for this travesty. The vitriol of the present makes boomers pine for the halcyon days of civil debate.

60 Minutes offered that in its treatment of Germany. The pathetic bureaucrats interviewed highlighted how much Germany prizes respectful dialogue and enforces strict speech laws to safeguard democracy. While the segment showed police raids, the bureaucrats stressed they usually “only” confiscate the offender’s phone. Alfonsi and the bureaucrats had a good laugh about that. It’s apparently a good idea to take someone’s property if they post things you disagree with. This is a benign way to peddle tyrannical methods. Americans, even boomers, would be upset by images of citizens being carted off to jail over tweets. But just taking the phone away makes it seem harmless. It’s more like a concerned relative staging an intervention than the Stasi–at least, that’s how 60 Minutes wants us to see it.

To further drive home the appeal to boomers, Alfonsi interviewed an elderly, out-of-touch Green politician to learn about her troubles with trolls. Renate Künast has zealously pursued citizens who say mean things about her. She’s pressured tech companies to take down every statement she deems false about herself. She relishes her ability to punish online critics. Rather than portray this powerful politician as a power-mad hag, 60 Minutes invites the audience to sympathize with her and wish they had the same power in America. Wouldn’t it be great if boomers could also punish people who make fun of them on X? This segment sure hopes the viewers think that’s a grand idea.

60 Minutes didn’t bother to interview critics of Germany’s censorship regime. Alfonsi did interview one female leftist who thinks the government needs to be even more tyrannical. That was the only different opinion found. Generally, 60 Minutes tries to find at least one critic on a topic the program covers. But for Germany’s insane hate speech laws, the CBS journalists only found enthusiasts.

The good news is that these appeals won’t sway much of the population. Both dumb moments drew backlash rather than praise. CBs likely won’t convert many Americans to its anti-speech mission.

But these moments speak to enduring myths in America and how the media exploit them to push an insidious agenda. It’s not the worst thing to wish for a higher level of discourse, but enforced civility often means the important issues are shunned and politicians come together to screw over the country. In the era of civil discourse, we got amnesty, increased legal immigration, an expansion of the civil rights regime, and the Iraq War. It’s better that things are less civil.

It’s fundamental to defend free speech. It always benefits the Right, which is why the media wants it restricted. The 60 Minutes segment does have its value in the end: watching it will make one proud to be an American.