Contested Boundaries of the "Sayable": Media, State, Public, and the Challenge of Political Violence

After the politically motivated murder of a Frankfurt police officer in 1885, the German liberal and democratic newspapers raised the question of how the press should deal with such a case. They were afraid that publishing too many details and covering the case in a sensationalist tone could not only hinder the police investigation but also trigger more anarchist violence, increasing the already existing fear in the population and ultimately leading to strict reactionary measures by the state. The liberal and democratic press was well aware that the authorities could exploit a potential moral panic to further restrict the freedom of the press, just as they had done after two assassination attempts on the Kaiser in 1878. At the same time, however, members of the press felt the moral obligation to inform their audience about the alleged anarchist threat and to reflect critically upon the authorities' reactions to political violence. The German authorities followed these published debates with interest, given that the government, courts, and police also struggled with the question of which information, and which interpretations of political violence, should be released to the press. Throughout the period of the German Empire, such discussions about which information could or should be released sprang up as soon as new cases or trials of political violence occurred in both the national and international arena. These negotiations over the "sayable" in times of perceived political crisis offer a helpful lens through which to examine the accepted and disputed moral and political boundaries of public discourse in the German Empire. They also provide a new perspective on the authorities' and the press's evolving perceptions of the role of mass media, as well as their influence upon modern society and politics.