Schleswig-Holstein's Minister President Daniel Günther has clarified that his 'yes' to a question about censorship in the ZDF show 'Markus Lanz' referred to banning social media for minors. The debate over the right-wing populist portal Nius ignited from a misunderstood response, leading to a shitstorm on social networks. Günther emphasized press freedom, while Nius initiates legal action.
On Wednesday evening, Daniel Günther (CDU) criticized the online portal Nius as an 'enemy of democracy' on the show 'Markus Lanz' and spoke of the need to defend against such excesses. He had previously highlighted the dangers of social media and advocated banning it for children and youth under 16. When host Markus Lanz asked if that meant regulation, censorship, or even bans, Günther replied briefly with 'yes'. He clarified, however, that it concerned social media, and later mentioned no bans for outlets like Nius.
This response led to varying interpretations and a shitstorm, particularly in right-wing circles. Nius accused Günther of wanting a dictatorship and absurdly compared him to 'Kiel Jong-un'. The German Journalists' Association (DJV), with chairman Mika Beuster, saw a 'grave contradiction to the Basic Law' and stressed that the state must not enforce censorship. The FDP parliamentary group in Schleswig-Holstein submitted a minor inquiry demanding clarification on press freedom.
On Sunday, Günther positioned himself on social media against fake news and political campaigns by alternative media: 'Activism, whether from the left or right, is not journalism.' On Monday, he told the Kieler Nachrichten: 'In the show, I advocated a social media ban for under 16s. That's what my response referred to.' He emphasized that freedom of opinion and the press is a high good, but media bear responsibility.
Party colleague Karin Prien (CDU) called the campaign 'absurd', and Bremen's mayor Andreas Bovenschulte (SPD) supported Günther's criticism. Nius sent a cease-and-desist letter to the state of Schleswig-Holstein via lawyer Joachim Steinhöfel, which is now under review. Commentators like Jonas Bickel see the shitstorm as confirming Günther's charges against populist journalism, while Wolfram Hammer argues Günther's stance harms democracy.
