Hate mail against the Federal President: 65-year-old has to pay 1,800 euros!

Hate mail against the Federal President: 65-year-old has to pay 1,800 euros!

In Thuringia, the Gera regional court made a ruling that reignited the debate about freedom of expression and personal attacks. A 65-year-old man from Orlamünde was convicted of defaming the Federal President and now has to pay a fine of 1,800 euros. In a Facebook post, the defendant called Frank-Walter Steinmeier (SPD) a “Nazi pig” and called for the radical Islamic Palestinian organization Hamas to “hopefully” send a bomb. According to the court, these statements exceed the limits of freedom of expression and do not fall under the protection of Article 5 of the Basic Law. Yahoo Nachrichten reports that both the defense and the prosecution each requested a fine of 90 daily rates. The judgment is not yet legally binding.

What might be the reasons for such drastic measures? The court classified the case as a state security matter because the Federal President is a constitutional body. In German criminal law, the denigration of public officials is classified as a crime of “endangering the democratic constitutional state,” which actually illustrates the seriousness of the situation. The defendant admitted the authorship of the post, but the question still arises as to where the line lies between expression of opinion and insults that are relevant under criminal law. In southern Thuringia emphasizes that the man's statements clearly exceed the established limits of freedom of expression.

Freedom of expression vs. personal rights

In the current discussion about freedom of expression, reference is often made to the fundamental decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court. Even though freedom of expression is very important in Germany, there are clear framework conditions that must not be exceeded. Klaus F. Gärditz, professor of public law, emphasizes in an article that freedom of expression must be interpreted “in the light of fundamental rights”. Insults and incitement are criminal offenses that protect dignity and personal rights. LTO makes it clear that the balance between freedom of expression and personal rights does not always work in favor of freedom of expression.

The relevance of criminal communications law becomes increasingly important in times of social brutalization. Criticism remains important for democratic debate, but it should not be misunderstood as a license for defamation and humiliation. It is essential that the dignity and right to respect of all people are respected in order to protect the functional conditions of a liberal democracy.