“The Hentschke-Bau lawsuit is a strange phenomenon.”

It is very rare for scientific publications to be sued. The only case I know of also occurred in Saxony. It was in 2016, when the NDP filed a lawsuit against political scientist Steven Kalitzer, who at the time was also serving as an expert on the NDP ban proceedings, before the Federal Constitutional Court. This included statements that the NDP was planning organized state crimes. The NDP initially succeeded in the expedited procedure before the single judge in the regional court chamber, Jens Mayer.

Yes. The case at the time was also a scandal: A judge who had previously made positive public comments about the NDP issued an injunction against a scholar without addressing academic freedom. His decision was ultimately overturned by the regional court in the expedited procedure in a three-judge chamber. But I don't know of any other cases, so it's a strange phenomenon.

Steffen Kelitz, a researcher on political extremism, presented a summary in “Zeit” in the form of an interview based on his scientific publications. The scientific context was not at issue here because Mr. Kaelitz simply summarized the results of his research in “Zeit.” He had previously presented this as an expert in procedures before the Federal Constitutional Court.

First of all, the mere fact that researchers at a scientific institution say something is not enough to say that academic freedom can be affected here. For a paper to become a scientific paper, it must be integrated into a method-based, knowledge-oriented project: for example, in a research project dealing with political extremism in the state of Saxony or the involvement of local companies. Then this will be science.

no. The result is presented briefly and recommendations for action are drawn. It's kind of like political activism in that you're uncovering machinations and researching them. This is deserved and certainly protected by fundamental rights, whether through freedom of the press, freedom of information or freedom of political expression.

The fact that the institute has a certain development does not exclude its scientific nature. What is important is not whether I have a certain attitude towards a matter, but whether I am able to deal with the matter in an objective and systematically disciplined way. Then, of course, my project has academic freedom and is protected. In my opinion, the issue of political orientation is irrelevant.

The way the policy paper looks here, to me it's more like journalistic research in a very specific environment. But this is not crucial to the process. Regardless of whether I express myself as a scholar, journalist, or active citizen, it will be important in court that this statement be truthful. You will not be able to seek injunctive relief if a fact becomes public. Ultimately, the validity of research findings is crucial. On the basis of what has been presented, being classified as right-wing or far-right would be a value judgment that the entrepreneur would have to make.

Here you can find the EFBI policy paper “Interconnected and proven: entrepreneurial commitment to the far right in East Saxony”

Interview conducted by Madeleine Arendt.