German Trusted Flagger Controversy Raises Free Speech Concerns
Debate grows over government-funded reporting centres and their role in online content moderation
A growing chorus of German politicians, lawyers, and civil society voices is raising alarm over the country’s use of so-called trusted flaggers—organisations empowered to report and help remove illegal content online under the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA). Critics argue that these largely government-funded reporting centres may be blurring the line between legitimate content moderation and censorship.
The system, designed to tackle online hate speech and harmful content, involves state-backed NGOs such as Respect and HateAid acting as trusted flaggers. These organisations are responsible for flagging posts on social media platforms that may violate laws, such as incitement to hatred or defamation. While platforms remain legally responsible for content removal, trusted flaggers’ reports typically prompt fast action due to their credibility and the regulatory pressure under the DSA.
Trusted flaggers are intended to be independent, credible entities designated by EU member states to assist platforms in identifying and removing illegal content. Their role is central to the DSA’s effort to create a safer online environment. However, in Germany, the issue has taken a contentious turn.
Concerns have intensified following reports that some citizens have faced early-morning police raids over posts critical of politicians. Critics say opinion and satire are at risk of being misinterpreted as criminal speech. Lawyer Ralf Höcker described the current approach as a form of ‘state censorship,’ raising concerns over the close ties between the flaggers and political entities. He warned of ‘numerous connections’ between these organisations and political parties, saying the situation ‘cannot end well.’
CDU lawmaker Saskia Ludwig echoed these concerns, arguing that entrusting private organisations—especially those receiving up to 95% state funding—to police online speech poses serious risks. ‘Trusted flaggers are not controlled. That’s not possible,’ Ludwig stated, recalling her experience growing up in East Germany, where public reporting systems were used to suppress dissent.
While proponents of the system—such as SPD MP Parsa Marvi—defend the measure as necessary to combat serious crimes like threats, bullying, and defamation online, critics note the chilling effect on public discourse. Marvi maintains that “nothing will be deleted” by the flaggers themselves, as platforms retain the final decision. Yet critics point to the pressure platforms face, including verification that deletions were made as requested.
The debate is also shaped by Germany’s reintroduction of Section 188 of the criminal code during the COVID-19 pandemic, which expanded penalties for insulting political figures, including local officials. Statistics show a sharp rise in the number of criminal complaints filed by politicians for online insults, raising concerns about the legal risks of political criticism. Even satirical memes have triggered police actions.
Civil society groups warn that such developments could erode public trust and weaken the foundations of democratic debate. They argue that without clearer safeguards, trusted flagger systems may lead to overreach—where opinions outside of mainstream narratives are removed or discouraged.
Germany is among the few EU countries to have fully operational trusted flaggers, with 14 others yet to appoint such bodies. The urgency of the debate is underscored by transparency concerns. For instance, Euronews revealed that the NGO Respect, designated as a trusted flagger by the German Network Agency, receives 95% of its funding from the federal government’s ‘Demokratie Leben’ programme. Critics argue this undermines its independence.
For civil society, the implications are significant. Trusted flaggers can serve as important tools to combat digital abuse and protect vulnerable users—but only if implemented with transparency, independence, and checks against misuse. Without these safeguards, there is a risk that mechanisms meant to protect democracy could instead suppress it.
