Democracy Under Pressure: Insights from German conference on public spheres

From September 30 to October 2, 2025, the second part of the conference "Political Public Sphere" organized by the German Political Science Association's section for Political Theory and History of Ideas took place in Erlangen, Bavaria. While the first part in Erfurt, Thuringia during spring focused on the structures of political public spheres, the Erlangen conference concentrated on the actors and strategies that shape, threaten, or defend these public spheres. For the work of Blueprint’s No SLAPP Contact Point, the conference offered important theoretical perspectives on phenomena we encounter regularly in our work: the systematic intimidation of critical voices, the erosion of democratic discourse spaces, and the question of actually gets to shape public discourse.

Who Gets to Speak? The Contested Boundaries of What Can Be Said

The conference opened with a panel on "Border Crossings of the Sayable," which examined the boundaries of what can be said as contested filters of political public spheres. Floris Biskamp and Hannah Hecker analyzed how these boundaries are not naturally given but actively set, shifted, and defended. This perspective is also central to understanding SLAPP lawsuits: they are an instrument for strategically shifting these boundaries of sayability and silencing critical voices. When journalists, activists, or researchers are subjected to ruinous lawsuits, it's in the end not about the legal dispute itself, but about narrowing the space of what can be said and deterring others from speaking.

The following panel expanded this perspective to include the emotional dimension of public communication. Mareike Gebhardt examined how in power-laden public spheres, selective decisions are made about whose grief and suffering may become publicly visible – a mechanism closely linked to questions of representation and exclusion. Laura Gorriahn illuminated the paradoxical dynamic between vulnerability to harm and the power to harm in democratic public spheres. These considerations are highly relevant for those affected by SLAPP lawsuits, whose psychological and emotional burden is often underestimated and whose vulnerability is strategically exploited.

Moralization as a Weapon? The Ambivalence of Public Communication

Cord Schmelzle's keynote on whether the moralization of public communication poses a danger to democracy offered a nuanced analysis of a much-discussed phenomenon. While moral arguments are necessary to name injustices and initiate change, they can also be instrumentalized to narrow discourse spaces and delegitimize dissenting opinions. This ambivalence is also evident in the context of SLAPP: plaintiffs often present themselves as victims of alleged defamation and use moralizing narratives to legitimize their intimidation tactics. At the same time, it is precisely moral arguments – about human rights, environmental protection, or anti-corruption – that are put forward by SLAPP targets and must be protected.

New Actors, Old Patterns: Resistance and Regression

The panel on new actors and forms of intervention showed how civil society groups fight for public space with performative strategies and how covert forms of resistance serve as resources for democratic public spheres. Viktoria Huegel's contribution on "Training for the future" and Mascha Liening's reflections on hidden resistance strategies made clear that those who are structurally excluded from public discourse must find creative ways to be heard. 

Particularly relevant for work against SLAPP was the panel on the "Shadow Sides of Political Public Spheres." Tobias Adler-Bartels analyzed the radical-conservative critique of democratic public spheres, while Christian Schwaabe examined the political mobilization of malice. These contributions help understand that SLAPP lawsuits cannot be viewed in isolation but are rather to be understood as part of a broader anti-democratic strategy aimed at systematically undermining critical public discourse.

Power-Laden Public Spheres and Democratic Regression

The panel on "power-laden public spheres" addressed a topic essential for protection against SLAPP with Lea Watzinger's contribution on the role of whistleblowing. Whistleblowers are particularly frequent targets of strategic lawsuits because they expose abuse of power and misconduct. Vincent August's conflict-theoretical analysis of power-laden public spheres using climate politics as an example showed how structural power relations shape public discourse and systematically privilege or marginalize certain positions.

The final panel on "Political Public Spheres and Democratic Regression" expanded the view beyond democratic contexts. Valerian Thielicke-Witt's reflections on the postcolonial situation in authoritarian contexts and Campbell MacGillivray's analysis of the "Anti-Democratic International" made clear that the threat to democratic public spheres is a global phenomenon. The networking of anti-democratic actors across borders and the exchange of strategies for suppressing critical voices are developments also relevant to the SLAPP problem, as we increasingly observe cross-border intimidation lawsuits.

Equality in Speaking: A Normative Vision

Teresa Bejan's keynote "Speaking as Equals" offered a normative vision of democratic public spheres based on the equality of all speakers. This perspective is fundamental to the fight against SLAPP: when wealthy or powerful actors can effectively prevent others from participating equally in public discourse through abusive lawsuits, the democratic ideal of equality in speech is fundamentally violated. SLAPP lawsuits are an instrument of inequality – they work precisely because the plaintiff has more resources and strategically deploys this asymmetry.

Conclusion: Theory and Practice in Dialogue

The Erlangen conference offered important theoretical perspectives on phenomena that the No SLAPP Contact Point confronts daily in its practical work. The discussions made clear that SLAPP lawsuits cannot be understood as an isolated legal problem but as part of a broader development in which democratic public spheres are increasingly under pressure. The systematic analysis of actors, strategies, and power structures helps us understand why protection against abusive lawsuits is so important: it's not just about individual victims but about defending democratic discourse space itself. The connection between political-theoretical reflection and practical work remains essential – because only when we understand the structural connections can we develop effective counter-strategies.

This article first appeared on www.noslapp.de