After visiting a former concentration camp in Europe and condemning the horrors of the Holocaust, Vice President Vance was accused by German authorities of supporting Nazism for meeting with the leader of the right-wing AfD party.
While Germany technically upholds freedom of speech, it is far more restrictive than in the United States.
Holocaust denial and Nazi symbols are explicitly prohibited—denying the Holocaust, glorifying Nazism, or using Nazi symbols is a criminal offense.
However, the term “glorifying” Nazism is problematic, as the law does not clearly define what constitutes glorification.
Similarly, Germany enforces censorship of extremism, but “extremism” is also left undefined, meaning that any group or activity deemed extremist by the government can be censored.
Under German law, groups deemed a threat to democracy, such as far-right or Islamist organizations, may have their speech restricted.
Organizations that oppose the “free democratic basic order” (freiheitliche demokratische Grundordnung) can be banned, which has included neo-Nazi groups and some Islamist organizations.
Additionally, certain protests and assemblies can be restricted for public safety, particularly those that promote racial hatred or deny historical crimes.
In the specific case of Vice President Vance, mainstream media has framed the accusation against him as extending “by extension” to President Trump.
The idea that one person’s actions can be used as an accusation against another is deeply concerning, as it violates fundamental principles of the criminal justice system—namely, that individuals are only accountable for their own actions and that there is no guilt by association.
JD Vance engaged with a group that is considered to be descended from Nazism. So, they are not even considered a Nazi organization.
The party in question, Alternative for Germany (AfD), has significant popular support, with around 20% of the population backing it. AfD has been accused of “downplaying” Hitler’s atrocities and some of its members have allegedly “reveled in Nazi slogans.”
The use of “downplayed” is problematic, as the term lacks a clear legal definition. Does it mean that questioning official data or widely accepted narratives is now considered a crime?
Similarly, what does it mean to “revel” in Nazi slogans? Did members fly the Nazi flag, or does the accusation refer to something more ambiguous?
And if the alleged wrongdoing was as blatant as flying a Nazi flag—something that is explicitly illegal in Germany—then why not state it directly?
The vagueness of these accusations raises concerns about how speech and political engagement are being policed.
Furthermore, German authorities are accusing Vance of election interference for endorsing AfD as a political partner—an ironic charge, given that foreign political endorsements are commonplace in American elections.
Germany’s restrictive stance on free speech and political affiliation is intended to prevent the rise of another Hitler.
However, in doing so, they miss the point—by restricting free speech, prohibiting meetings and alliances between political parties, and limiting interactions between individuals and groups deemed “extremist,” they are creating a dangerous, authoritarian system where citizens are denied basic rights to free speech and political affiliation.
In a system eerily reminiscent of Orwell’s dystopian world in 1984, Germany operates the Office for the Protection of the Constitution (Verfassungsschutz)—an intelligence agency tasked with monitoring political parties for “extremist tendencies” and empowered to ban them outright.
This raises serious concerns about who decides what is extremist and how far the state can go in controlling political discourse.
Both Vice President JD Vance and Elon Musk, who has endorsed the AfD, have stated that Germany should stop restricting free speech and political freedom.
In response, German media has claimed that their support for AfD has boosted the party’s standing in the polls, calling it a “dangerous threat to democracy.”
At the end of the day, however, only Germans can vote in German elections—and if the German people did not want AfD to win, then AfD would not win, regardless of anything Musk or Vance said.
There is no indication that either of them engaged in any illicit activity—their only actions were dialoguing with and endorsing the party.
World leaders regularly endorse U.S. candidates, and yet no one claims that this constitutes election interference.
A clear example of how foreign endorsements do not determine election outcomes is the 2024 U.S. election, where Kamala Harris received the overwhelming majority of endorsements from foreign leaders, while Trump received very few—yet Trump still won the presidency.
JD Vance correctly identified Germany’s restrictions on speech and political freedom as a greater threat than an attack by China or Russia.
And he is right—so far, neither China nor Russia has attacked Germany, yet the German government itself has restricted the free speech and political affiliation of its own citizens.
Mr. Vance stated that German authorities have the power to shut down social media during an election if they deem content “dangerous.” And he is not far off.
Germany’s Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG – Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz), passed in 2017, requires social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube to remove content deemed illegal—including hate speech and incitement to violence—within 24 hours (or 7 days for more complex cases) after receiving a complaint.
Additionally, Germany implements election integrity and misinformation measures, where the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) actively monitors and counters what it considers foreign influence and extremist propaganda during elections.
Social media platforms voluntarily collaborate with the government to flag and remove election-related content deemed false or misleading.
While there is no explicit law allowing a full social media shutdown, Germany’s general security laws provide a legal basis for restricting access to online platforms.
Under the Telecommunications Act (Telekommunikationsgesetz – TKG), authorities can order service restrictions in extreme situations, such as during terrorist attacks or perceived threats to democratic stability.
JD Vance has correctly pointed out that Hitler’s rise was not the result of free speech—but rather, once in power, he shut down free speech.
This is precisely what the German government is doing now—suppressing speech in the name of protecting democracy, while in reality, centralizing control over political discourse.
The post Vice President JD Vance Takes Europe and Defends Free Speech appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.