> Goebbels quickly exercised power over the medium, because the state already controlled its infrastructure and content. Unlikely. The Nazis exercised power ov

> Goebbels quickly exercised power over the medium, because the state already controlled its infrastructure and content. Unlikely. The Nazis exercised power over everything, including newspapers, which previously were not state-controlled. Radio being privately controlled wouldn't have stopped them. If you want to read more, this was part of the process called "Gleichschaltung". The article apparently wants to use the Weimar Republic as an argument against restricting free speech. Which is interesting because the prevailing view here in Germany is that it failed because of too much free speech. That's why the Parliamentary Council, which drafted the West German constitution, put into place certain restrictions. That's part of the concept of "militant democracy" which the article mentions, but plays down a bit. > Initially, Bredow allowed private companies to broadcast Private companies were not allowed to broadcast in post-war West Germany until the eighties. We had and still have public broadcasters (similar to the BBC) for that. Media law is a state matter to ensure a federal government hostile to freedom and democracy cannot take control of them. The private broadcasters hardly contribute to democracy. > “freedom of speech has boundaries.” That isn't quite what he said. He said that freedom of opinion has boundaries. Which they do, but the difference is still important. Forbidding people from making factually incorrect claims does not restrict their freedom of opinion because lies aren't opinions to begin with. As the Federal Constitutional Court put it: "To knowingly spread incorrect averments that have been proven false cannot contribute to the formation of public opinion and is not protected by freedom of opinion by itself."