Interview: Sina Laubenstein (Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte)
“We defend fundamental and human rights by legal means.” Nothing less is the mission of the Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte e.V. (GFF, Society for Civil Rights). The non-profit association, based in Berlin, was founded in 2015 and has since used strategic litigation to enforce fundamental and human rights. For years, the GFF has also been actively involved in the political debate on the so-called “Law against Digital Violence.” The law is currently being drafted by the Federal Ministry of Justice (BMJ), and with it the traffic-light coalition wants to improve protection for people affected by digital violence. Sina Laubenstein, project coordinator of the GFF’s Marie Munk Initiative, gave our colleague Moritz Maisenbacher insights into the GFF’s work, the role of civil society organizations in the legislative process and her personal motivation for fighting digital violence.
Moritz: The GFF recently published its own draft for a Digital Violence Protection Act. What is your goal with it?
Sina: With our draft, we are actively contributing to the debate on protection against violence in the digital space. It was especially important to us to present a draft that respects fundamental rights and holds up well enough to work in practice. We know that it is the government, not us as a civil society organization, that writes the laws. Still, our draft is a proposal, and of course we hope that parts of it can be adopted. At the very least, we want to provide ideas that inspire the Federal Ministry of Justice (BMJ), which is responsible for drafting the bill.
Moritz: In May this year, the BMJ presented first key points for the law and asked affected companies, associations and organizations for comments. You also submitted a statement. Can you briefly outline what you already like about it and where you see room for criticism?
Sina: Overall, especially from a civil society perspective, it is a success that a key points paper exists at all. The fact that politicians have recognized that digital violence is a major problem, and that the project was therefore already included in the coalition agreement, gave us hope. As the GFF, we especially welcome that court-ordered account suspensions are planned and that social networks will still have to appoint an authorized recipient in Germany for legal documents. What we criticize most is how the conditions for account suspensions are designed. The current proposal in the BMJ’s key points paper sets such high hurdles that they will hardly be usable in practice for those affected. This takes away the possibility of using account suspensions as a quick and effective tool. For example, the definition of digital violence is far too narrow. Cases of incitement to hatred (Volksverhetzung), for instance, are not covered, even though they are one of the most common offenses in the digital space.
Another point we see very critically is that counseling services are currently not allowed to apply for account suspensions, either on their own initiative or on behalf of those affected. But we know from experience that those affected often lack not so much the courage as the resources to file a complaint themselves. The coalition agreement announced funding for the counseling services that would be needed for this. There is nothing about this in the key points.
In our view, the rights to obtain user information provided for in the key points also do not help to provide quick and effective protection against digital violence. Google reviews are not digital violence. Procedures like this can easily be misused.
We would like the BMJ to remember what the bill is mainly about: those affected must be at the center and empowered to defend themselves quickly and effectively against digital violence. Focusing only on prosecution and on regulating digital platforms, as has been done so far, is not enough.
Digital violence is a problem for society as a whole. We cannot tackle it from just one angle. That is what I would like to see as the process continues. But we are only talking about key points here. It is not yet a draft bill, let alone a finished law. Now is the time for feedback and criticism, and to hope that other ministries will be involved, for example the Federal Ministry for Family Affairs (BMFSFJ) to set up counseling services.
Moritz: How do you, as a civil society organization, get involved in legislative processes? How early do you start engaging with political stakeholders and the political debate?
Sina: The idea of account suspensions was first raised in 2019 by Ulf Buermeyer, a GFF board member, in an article in Tagesspiegel. It was then picked up by other initiatives and parties. Our project started in November 2021. Only then did we look at who we could talk to politically: for example, MPs who have been affected by digital violence themselves or have already spoken about the topic, or parties that already support account suspensions. But it was also important to find out where we ourselves fit within the large civil society landscape. There are many civil society organizations working either on digital violence or on fundamental rights in the digital space. We cover both. As a first step, it was very important to ask ourselves where we stand, and to find out which demands we share with other organizations and where we differ.
We then used all of 2022 to carry out an extensive process to develop a balanced proposal. First, we presented our initial ideas to other civil society actors and relevant MPs. Over the summer, we then ran a first feedback round with civil society organizations only. Afterwards, we incorporated their feedback and criticism.
Of course, we also talked to MPs and the responsible spokespeople of the parliamentary groups in the Bundestag to see how the topic and our ideas were received by the parties. We also looked at whether our proposal was compatible with the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA). We commissioned a legal opinion, which concluded that there is room for national regulation. This allowed us to answer open questions and be seen as a serious partner in political discussions.
Moritz: Is everyone at the GFF involved in the work on the Digital Violence Protection Act? As a donation-funded organization with limited financial and human resources, how do you allocate them?
Sina: There are two of us in the Marie Munk Initiative, which is responsible for the law within the GFF. Of course, we still regularly talk to people from other teams. For example, we regularly discuss the topic with our legal team to get feedback. But it’s also clear that we are not a huge team. We have neither a ministry behind us nor the kind of lobbying teams that companies have to push an issue.
Moritz: How do you see your role compared to the big platforms (Facebook, Twitter, TikTok, etc.), which probably have less interest in having their control over their platforms restricted? What is the relationship like? Do you talk to them?
Sina: Yes, we have also talked to various platforms, if only because it makes sense to discuss with them whether our ideas are technically feasible and practical. The platforms naturally have to play a role in the process. These conversations have never been negative. But it is also clear that we have different interests on the issue. So far, however, there has been no major opposition to the project. Of course, that could still change. At the moment, the big platforms are mainly busy implementing the DSA.
Moritz: Do you work strategically with MPs, for example by initiating written parliamentary questions (Kleine Anfragen)?
Sina: Of course we talk to MPs from different parties. Through our F5 alliance, for example, we also hold parliamentary breakfasts, including on topics other than the Digital Violence Protection Act. We always try to take an active part in discussions. Just hoping that our papers and statements will be read and our ideas picked up would be naive.
Moritz: Finally, what drives you personally in your daily work? How did you come to work on digital violence?
Sina: Mainly because I was already politically active before working at the GFF and, for example, managed projects against right-wing extremism. I have also repeatedly been targeted by digital violence myself, so I have a personal motivation to work against it. Through my work at the GFF, I have also become even more aware of the need to think through all possible consequences of political demands. This is very important so that we don’t end up with a law that backfires and does society more harm than good.
This interview was translated into English from the original German
Sina Laubenstein is a political scientist and has been part of the GFF since November 2021, where she works on the digital violence protection project. She also works at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue on the Business Council for Democracy project, where she runs training on digital threats for companies. Before that, she led the project “Die Würde des Menschen ist unhassbar – No Hate Speech” (a play on “Human dignity is inviolable,” the first line of Germany’s Basic Law) at Neue deutsche Medienmacherinnen. The project included implementing the Council of Europe’s No Hate Speech Movement in Germany. She writes about “digital civil courage” and “online hate,” advises civil society and political actors on strategies for dealing with extremism and online hate speech, and is internationally recognized as an expert in the field.*
Source: Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte e.V.
People love talking about people. So it is hardly surprising that the media is currently fixated on the question of who might replace Chancellor Friedrich…