Renate Künast has to go to court again, but she has reached her goal. The Green politician has been fighting Facebook in court for more than two years. She is demanding that the company provide the names of the people who hurled the worst abuse at her. After several attempts in Berlin courts, she was only granted this information in twelve out of 22 cases, and the judges did not see the other comments as criminal insults.
Now the Federal Constitutional Court has intervened, fully agreed with Künast and reversed the decisions of the Berlin courts. At the same time, Karlsruhe has clearly set the standards for what politicians have to endure.
protect willingness to engage
In the decision published on Wednesday, the First Senate explained that the protection of freedom of expression arose precisely from the special “need for protection of criticism of power” and that in this respect, when weighing up the protection of honor, it should be taken into account whether privacy or the public activity is the subject of statements.
The central sentence of the decision reads: “In contrast to any public disregard or hate speech aimed at the person, the constitution sets limits on the right of expression for all persons and does not exempt persons in public life and office holders from this.” In other words: politicians have to do more endure if they have previously intervened in the political debate by making their own statements, but they do not have to endure everything, their honor is protected even then.
Weekdays at 6:30 a.m
The judges in Karlsruhe also share the concern that, in view of the hostilities, fewer people will decide to become politically active in the future. They argue that protecting the personal rights of public officials and politicians is in the public interest, not just for those affected. The willingness to participate in state and society can only be expected if adequate protection is guaranteed for those who are involved here.
“Pedophile Trulla” and “piece of shit” could be read about Künast on Facebook. “Lock this sick woman awake, she no longer knows what she’s talking about”, “old perverted bastard”. The background in 2015 was the debate about the attitude of the Green Party to pedophilia in the 1980s. In the Berlin House of Representatives, a Green speaker was asked in 1986 how she felt about a decision by the Greens in North Rhine-Westphalia to lift the threat of punishment for sexual acts on children.
According to the record, Künast called in: “Come on, if there’s no violence involved.” A blogger made the quote: “Come on, if there’s no violence involved, sex with children is quite ok. It’s good now” and published it on Facebook in 2019, which led to the insults.
In ten cases, Künast was denied information
Künast contacted the district court of Berlin to get information from Facebook about the names of these users, but the first attempt failed completely. The judges did not see any punishable insults in the comments, but permissible, albeit polemical, expressions of opinion. According to the Telemedia Act, social networks are only obliged to provide information about users’ inventory data if the illegal content has been determined by a court.
In response to Künast’s complaint and massive public criticism of the verdict, the district court dealt with the comments again and then classified six of the 22 posts as criminally relevant. However, according to the judges, what weighed against Künast was that, although misquoted, she herself expressed herself on the subject in a way that could give rise to criticism. The Court of Appeal saw the offense of insult fulfilled in a further six cases. In ten cases, however, Künast was denied information about the names of the users, which is why she moved to Karlsruhe.
First Senate addressed clear words to the Berlin courts. Although the Court of Appeal recognizes that the comments are “significantly defamatory disparagements”, the court misjudges the “meaning and scope of the right of personality” in that it only considers an insult to be given if the statement is merely personal disparagement and abuse to be understood.
Statements below the level of abusive criticism are not automatically legal according to Karlsruhe jurisdiction, here a balance between freedom of expression and protection of honor is required. It cannot be replaced by the assertion “sometimes used without justification” by the specialist court that Künast had to accept the attack as a politician in the public opinion struggle.
#Decision #Künast #case #Politicians #dont #endure