C.J. Hopkins, an American left-wing award-winning playwright, author, and political satirist, finds himself in the crosshairs of a legal battle in Germany that strikes at the very heart of free expression. Known for his sharp political commentary, Hopkins now faces prosecution for daring to challenge the official COVID narrative and drawing comparisons between ‘New Normal’ authoritarianism and Nazi Germany. His legal battle has become emblematic of a terrifying global trend—punishing dissent under the guise of preventing hate speech.
Hopkins, who has lived in Berlin since 2004, initially moved to Europe to escape what he saw as an ‘oppressive’ political climate in the United States under the George W. Bush administration. A staunch critic of the Iraq War, he had participated in protests across New York City and was labeled a ‘Saddam lover’ and ‘terrorist apologist’ for his outspoken views. Feeling alienated by the discourse in the U.S., he sought refuge in Berlin, only to find that the situation for free expression in Germany would ultimately be much worse than what he had fled.
The Legal Battle
Hopkins, whose work has been widely read and respected for over 30 years, was acquitted during his first trial after the judge ruled in his favor. However, the German authorities refused to accept this verdict. In a chilling display of judicial overreach, the Berlin Public Prosecutor’s office appealed the acquittal, something that’s allowed under German law, and the Berlin Appellate Court overturned the original ruling. C.J. Hopkins is now officially labeled a “hate speech” criminal.
His crime? Posting tweets in which he compared Germany’s draconian Covid-19 measures to the rise of Nazi totalitarianism. His tweets, which featured the cover art of one of his books—depicting a swastika behind a medical mask—drew the ire of German authorities who have aggressively prosecuted dissenters of the government’s handling of the pandemic.
In a world where the comparison of emerging authoritarian regimes to historical totalitarian ones is often a part of public discourse, it is astonishing to witness the selective prosecution of Hopkins. Major German publications like Der Spiegel and Stern have published similar imagery featuring swastikas, yet Hopkins is the one being relentlessly pursued by the German legal system. He isn’t on trial for promoting Nazi ideology—he’s on trial for daring to draw parallels between today’s creeping authoritarianism and the horrors of the past.
A Stark Contrast: The Double Standard of Justice
In his own words, Hopkins details how German media outlets have used the same kind of imagery he did, but they have not been subjected to the same legal consequences. Der Spiegel and Stern were free to use swastikas to criticize conservative movements like the AfD party. Yet, when Hopkins used a similar artistic approach to criticize Germany’s COVID policies, he was hauled into court and branded as a purveyor of hate speech.
Hopkins makes it clear: “Let me be clear. I did that. In August 2022, as Germany was debating whether to end its Covid mask mandates, I tweeted those two Tweets. I challenged the official Covid narrative. I compared the New Normal to Nazi Germany. I did that with the cover art of one of my books.” Hopkins continues to highlight the double standard, pointing out that “Der Spiegel’s cover featured exactly the same artistic concept as my book cover and my Tweets. The only difference is that the swastika on Der Spiegel’s cover is behind a German flag, whereas the swastika on my book cover and in my Tweets is behind a medical mask. That’s it. That is the only difference.”
This alarming disparity underscores the selective prosecution of dissenting voices, particularly when they critique the state. As Hopkins rightly points out, this isn’t about prosecuting Nazi sympathizers—it’s about silencing those who challenge the government’s narrative.
Political Dissent: The Real Target
Hopkins’ persecution serves as a harsh warning. This case is not merely about a satirist posting a “provocative” image—it is about the criminalization of political dissent. The German authorities have made it clear: challenge the state’s narrative, and you will pay the price. Hopkins’ criticism of Germany’s Covid-19 response, which included strict lockdowns, business closures, mandatory mask-wearing, and the suspension of basic civil liberties, has made him a target.
Germany, once a beacon of post-war democracy and civil rights, is increasingly showing a darker side of its legal system. By convicting Hopkins of “hate speech” for what amounts to political satire, the authorities are setting a dangerous precedent that should alarm free speech advocates everywhere. His case mirrors a broader, terrifying trend across Western nations—where questioning government narratives, particularly in relation to COVID-19, is being equated with extremism and punished with the full weight of the law.
The Human Cost of Speaking Out
The legal and financial toll on C.J. Hopkins has been immense. He has spent thousands of euros defending himself against these charges, which have damaged his income and reputation as a writer. His book has been banned in Germany, his tweets censored, and he now faces the possibility of even harsher penalties, including fines and potential imprisonment—all because he dared to ask uncomfortable questions and refuse to back down.
This relentless pursuit by the German authorities isn’t just an attack on Hopkins—it’s an attack on free expression itself.
Hopkins’ Defiance: A Call for Justice
In a defiant statement to the Berlin Appellate Court, Hopkins made it clear that he will not be silenced: “Go ahead. Do whatever you feel you need to do to me. Fine me. Send me to prison. Bankrupt me. Whatever. I will not pretend that I am guilty of anything to make your punishment stop. I will not lie for you.”
Hopkins rightly asserts that this is not how things work in a democratic society; this is the behavior of a totalitarian regime.
A Wider Battle for Freedom
C.J. Hopkins’ case represents more than one man’s fight against unjust prosecution—it reflects the growing threat to free expression across Western democracies. Governments are increasingly weaponizing hate speech laws to silence critics, framing dissent as dangerous or extremist behavior. If Hopkins loses this fight, other governments will likely feel emboldened to use similar tactics against their own citizens, setting a dangerous precedent for criminalizing any expression that challenges state authority.
Historically, totalitarian regimes have silenced critics, banned books, and used fear to maintain control. Hopkins’ prosecution shows that these dark practices are closer than we’d like to believe. His case serves as a warning: the fight for free speech is far from over. If we allow this persecution to continue, we risk losing one of the fundamental freedoms of a democratic society.
As Hopkins himself states, totalitarianism never wins in the long run. But it’s up to us to ensure history doesn’t repeat itself. If C.J. Hopkins is defeated, the blow to free speech will be profound. We must continue to stand with him and protect the right to speak freely, no matter how uncomfortable that truth may be for those in power.
