Lawyer Brosius-Gersdorf on Markus Lanz: “Freedom of expression and freedom of the press have limits”

Despite, or perhaps because of, the relentless criticism directed at her, Frauke Brosius-Gersdorf ventures into the lion's den. But Markus Lanz , known for his probing questioning style, takes a more lenient approach. The lawyer and SPD candidate for a judgeship at the Federal Constitutional Court has "found herself caught in a storm of outrage through no fault of her own," says the host.

Lanz asks: "Is she a cultural activist, even a left-wing extremist , as some claim? Or is she possibly the victim of a campaign?" Brosius-Gersdorf doesn't hesitate for long: "I'm keen to contribute to a more objective debate." Her statements have been taken out of context – the media, in particular the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ), which cites anonymous sources, are primarily to blame for this. Freedom of the press has limits, she emphasizes.

“That was a rather blanket criticism of the media”

A few hours before the broadcast, Brosius-Gersdorf published a written statement sharply criticizing individual media outlets. "That was a rather sweeping criticism of the media," says Lanz. The law professor disagrees, saying she specifically referred to individual media outlets and journalists "who cited anonymous sources from individual politicians," particularly "a minister from the field of justice."

Brosius-Gersdorf alludes to an article in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung . In her opinion, there's no reason why these sources should remain anonymous. Was the report biased? Lanz asks, but she evades the question. He emphasizes that her colleagues at the FAZ "did a good job." Brosius-Gersdorf disagrees: "I don't think you're doing your job by extracting individual topics from a person's entire academic work."

Her positions on mandatory vaccination, abortion rights, or the headscarf issue are only a marginal part of her "scientific work." It goes without saying that someone who makes themselves available for such a high office must face public debate and criticism, even if it is "pointed and harsh." But there are limits: "Freedom of expression and freedom of the press are our greatest assets, but even that has its limits."

This is achieved "when we have a culture of debate in which we deal with opinions and positions that do not correspond to our own in a defamatory or shameful manner." She found the reporting on the topic of abortion particularly inaccurate – albeit "only by certain" media outlets.

The lawyer comments on compulsory vaccination

Later in the broadcast, Brosius-Gersdorf explains her actual positions, for example on mandatory vaccination. During the coronavirus pandemic, she studied issues scientifically in order to "make a contribution." Back then, in November 2021, she didn't rule out mandatory vaccination. Today, she sees things in a more nuanced light: "From our current perspective, we have a different body of knowledge."

Finally, she reiterates: she is neither an activist nor a politician, but a scholar. When asked by Markus Lanz whether she would stick to her candidacy even if it could damage the Federal Constitutional Court, she replies: "As soon as there's even a threat of that, I would not stick to my nomination. I don't want to be responsible for such damage—nor for a government crisis in this country."