Is censorship justified

When is censorship justified?


Example: "Corona does not exist!"
This is about a fact that is being falsely asserted: this is fake news and it can go away.

Unfortunately, it's not that simple either. Because it usually says something like this:
"I am of the opinion that Corona does not exist, because xy blah remained blub."

According to the BVerfG, allegations of fact that are consciously or have been proven to be obviously untrue no longer belong to the scope of protection of Article 5, Paragraph 1, Sentence 1 of the Basic Law, since they cannot contribute anything to the constitutionally guaranteed formation of opinion. (RN20)

Whether an utterance is primarily a fact or a value judgment must be determined by interpreting the relevant utterance in its overall context (cf.BVerfGE 93, 266 <295>; BVerfG, decision of the 3rd Chamber of the First Senate of 16 March 2017 - 1 BvR 3085/15 -,, Rn. 13). It must be ensured that the meaning of an utterance is not falsified by separating the actual and evaluative components of an utterance (see BVerfGE 90, 241 <248>). Where this is not possible, in the interests of effective protection of fundamental rights, the statement must be viewed as an expression of opinion and included in the area of ​​protection of freedom of expression (cf. BVerfGE 90, 241 <248>).

Federal Constitutional Court - decisions - unsuccessful ...

The boundaries are very fluid, so in my opinion it is so easy not to break down in the generality.

In general, I am against the deletion of such posts because, even if they contain fake news, for the most part they still contain opinions. Even if there are no valuable contributions to opinion, they are and strengthen the Q - believers that everyone is manipulated in the media.

You are right that the constitutional ban on censorship only affects the state order.
This is about purely private business decisions as to which content a platform will tolerate. However, if a platform is in a position dominating the marrow, this can have a quasi-censory effect. Even if it is not a classic censorship.

You still have to think about whether you actually want to intervene in this right of companies to use their platforms according to their rules, i.e. the right to delete content or not to delete it, or not.

These are much deeper questions.

Personally, I keep a note that there are other scientific findings on a post, better than deleting it. Because I fear, as already described above, that otherwise extreme communication bubbles could arise.
The call of these Q believers to only use Telegram is not because of the risk that content could be deleted, it is also the case that in Telegram chats one can control bubbles and echo chambers much better. You can also keep people away from other information sources.