Agenda-Cutting durch SLAPPs? : Die Klagen der Hohenzollern und ihre Wirkung auf die Presse- und Wissenschaftsfreiheit aus Sicht der betroffenen Journalisten und Forscher The Hohenzollern lawsuits and their effects on press and academic freedom from the perspective of the affected journalists and scientists

Zusammenfassung

Die Presse- und Wissenschaftsfreiheit ist die wichtigste Voraussetzung, damit Journalist:innen kritisch berichten und Wissenschaftler:innen ungehindert forschen können. Diese Studie untersucht an einem Fallbeispiel, inwiefern Berichterstattung und Forschung durch juristische Anwaltsstrategien beeinflusst, behindert oder sogar beendet werden können. Vor dem theoretischen Hintergrund der Konzepte Agenda Cutting und Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) wird diese Fragestellung am Beispiel der deutschen Adelsfamilie der Hohenzollern untersucht, die in den vergangenen Jahren massiv juristisch gegen Medienschaffende und Forschende vorgegangen ist. Es wurden leitfadengestützte Interviews mit zehn Betroffenen (fünf Journalisten und fünf Wissenschaftler:innen) geführt. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass es der Hohenzollern-Familie zwar nicht gelang, die Berichterstattung und Forschung zu unterbinden. Doch führten die Abmahnungen und Klagen zu einer teilweise erheblichen Verunsicherung, v. a. wegen des finanziellen Risikos, sowie zur Beeinträchtigung der Arbeit durch die Bindung von Zeit und Kraft. Bei den befragten Journalisten führte das juristische Vorgehen hauptsächlich zu einem defensiveren Sprachgebrauch, zuweilen auch zu einer Vermeidung des Themas. Die Wissenschaftler:innen vernetzten und solidarisierten sich untereinander und forschten weiterhin zu der Thematik, äußerten sich jedoch in der Folge seltener in klassischen Medien. In beiden Berufsgruppen gab es somit Anzeichen für einen chilling effect, die als Verluste für die allgemeine Öffentlichkeit gewertet werden können. Besonders bedroht von der juristischen Vorgehensweise waren offenbar freie Medienschaffende, Journalist:innen kleinerer Medien und befristet beschäftigte Doktorand:innen, die weniger gut abgesichert waren.

Abstract

Press freedom and freedom of science are the most important prerequisites for critical journalism and research. This study asks to what extent reporting and research can be influenced, hindered, or even stopped by strategic lawsuits. Against the theoretical background of the concepts Agenda Cutting and Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation (SLAPP), this question is examined using the example of the German noble family of Hohenzollern, which has taken massive legal action against media representatives and historians in recent years. Hohenzollern has been in non-public negotiations with the German federal and state governments since at least 2014 on compensation for expropriations after the Second World War. The dispute over the Hohenzollern heritage continues to this day, whereby the central question is whether or not the former Crown Prince Wilhelm provided considerable support for the National Socialists in the 1920s and 1930s.

For this research, guided interviews were conducted with ten of those affected (five journalists and five academics). The results show that the Hohenzollern family did not succeed in suppressing reporting and research. Among historians, the legal proceedings even stimulated research. But the interviews reveal a considerable impact on the respondents’ work. Both the journalists and the scientists described their experiences as time- and energy-consuming, emotionally stressful and detrimental to their work. All of the researchers and the majority of the journalists considered Hohenzollern’s actions to be unjustified, especially since the incriminated statements did not concern the core of the matter in question, but rather trivialities. In this respect, the interviews support the suspicion that the actions of the Hohenzollerns were abusive SLAPPs: The aim appears to have been to stop a debate – which means Agenda Cutting – using civil law rather than to protect the family from false factual allegations in public.

The effect of insecurity and intimidation seems to have been more pronounced among the researchers, as most of them had no experience of taking action under the law, than among the journalists, who declared legal warnings and lawsuits as a normal part of their work and often had a professional in-house legal team behind them. At the same time, there was considerable networking and solidarity among scientists (expressed above all in the establishment of the “Hohenzollern lawsuit wiki”), which was apparently completely absent in the journalism profession. There was a cross-professional effect of thinking more carefully about the own public statements. The spectrum ranges from increased precision in research – which can be seen as a gain for public discourse – to a more defensive use of language, the avoidance of the topic and even withdrawing from the mass media sphere – which must be assessed as a loss for the public. The latter three phenomena are indicators of the chilling effect on public watchdogs that SLAPPs are intended to achieve. Two respondents frankly spoke of self-censorship.

Overall, the Hohenzollerns’ actions were perceived negatively and mostly as a targeted attack on the freedom of expression, press freedom and freedom of science. Abstracting from their personal cases, interviewees also stated that Hohenzollern’s actions had a stronger deterrent effect on colleagues who are less established and financially or legally secure than themselves, such as freelance journalists, regional and local media or temporary doctoral students. Two of the journalists stressed that legal action against reporting in other countries, like the US and Great Britain, posed an even greater threat to journalism than in Germany.

At this point, the most significant limitation of the study should be mentioned: the small size of the sample. The willingness to give an interview on the part of the persons concerned was relatively low, which could also have been an expression of self-censorship due to fear of further legal sanctions. This would mean that there is a “dark field” of more intimidated people and that the problem is greater than it appears in the interviews. The interviewees were also clearly aware that their statements could have new legal consequences and were cautious in their wording.

A critical communication science – seeing itself as part of a vigilant civil society – should increasingly research such cases and attempts of Agenda Cutting. Especially since the Hohenzollern example is one that has achieved a certain prominence in the media. Other attempts to curtail the agenda and range of opinion of the democratic public through SLAPPs (or other strategies) may have been more successful. Possible cases of successful dethematisation, which are therefore less obvious as research topics, would then need to be addressed all the more urgently by academia.