A day after the Reform for the more effective combating hate on the Internet, the Federal constitutional court has made the boundaries between freedom of expression and the criminal law significantly. In a on Friday published a decision of the First Senate decided on four constitutional complaints, which the plaintiffs had objected to the conviction for insult.
Marlene Grunert
editor in the policy.
F. A. Z.
In a case that had been withdrawn from the Complainant the right of access to his daughter. After the decision, he made the names and pictures of the judges involved in the Internet to the public. He referred to them as “anti-social justice, criminal” and “child entfremder”, which would have decided at the behest of the named “right-wing” court President, the “acting obviously a massive right-hung”. Due to the factual datum, and the understandable emotional Situation, it is not acted abusive criticism, decided by the criminal judge. They took, therefore, a balance between freedom of expression and the protection of privacy, which is, in the case of invective is not only necessary; it’s basically the Honor is the dominant factor automatically. The consideration of the criminal court judge then went out in favor of privacy protection, they condemned the man for defamation to a fine. The constitutional court upheld the decision.
Drastic makes no comment on the invective
The judge made it clear once again that a Statement is only a waste of time, if it has no “reasonable relation to a factual dispute”; it must make the “groundless Scornful of the affected Person as such,” go. That is an insult and is particularly drastically, it is not enough to qualify as “abusive criticism” to.
The First Senate also clarified, which aspects must be taken into account in a balance of Interests. The decision means that the freedom of expression, weighing the harder, “the more the Statement aims to make a contribution to the formation of public opinion”. It is, however, only the “emotional end of the distribution of moods against individuals”, to get the freedom of less importance.
