Where does freedom of speech end?

Is calling Friedrich Merz “Pinocchio” an insult—or merely rude? Ahead of the elections in Saxony-Anhalt, Mecklenburg–Western Pomerania, and Berlin, this question is becoming increasingly urgent: How much escalation can a democratic public sphere tolerate? Where must the state intervene? And who draws the line?

Ronen Steinke, a legal expert and senior editor at the Süddeutsche Zeitung, takes a clear position: Anyone who uses language to instill fear, issue threats, or legitimize violence must expect a response from the state. Hate speech and incitement must not be trivialized. At the same time, he warns against the increasingly blurred boundaries of permissible speech. In his book Meinungsfreiheit, he argues that investigations into mere statements are initiated more frequently today than they were ten years ago—and that even experts cannot clearly say what is permitted and what is not. His criticism is clear: A rule that no one can understand with certainty is a bad rule.

At this Publix Thursday, Steinke will speak with Publix director Maria Exner about criticism of power, language taboos, and the responsibilities of the judiciary, politics, and journalism. Newsrooms play a particularly important role: They not only report on conflicts surrounding freedom of expression, hate speech, and incitement, but also shape the boundaries of acceptable discourse by defining terms, weighing their significance, and deciding which voices are given visibility. They can provide orientation—but they can also contribute to uncertainty when terms such as “incitement,” “breaking taboos,” or “cancel culture” are used loosely.