In the dispute over criticism of the federal government, Karlsruhe agrees with the journalist Julian Reichelt. The constitutional judges refer to freedom of expression. The state must withstand polemical criticism.
In August 2023, the former editor-in-chief of the Bild newspaper Julian Reichelt sharply criticized the federal government. Reichelt wrote on the short message service unique madhouse. What kind of government is this?!”
There was a link to a longer article with the headline: “Germany is paying more development aid to Afghanistan again.”
Berlin Court of Appeal banned tweet
At the request of the federal government, the Berlin Court of Appeal banned him from posting the short message on X. Reason: It was an untrue statement of fact. It also does not represent an expression of opinion that is covered by the freedom of expression protected by the Basic Law.
Reichelt gives the average reader the impression that money flowed directly to the Taliban. But that’s not true. Rather, the money was transferred to aid organizations such as UNICEF and various NGOs.
trust in Government work damaged?
The link to the article, which accurately reflects the recipient of the money, plays no role in the legal assessment. The short message could give the impression that the federal government is supporting a terrorist regime.
This could damage trust in the work of the federal government. Reichelt therefore had to delete the post.
Statement of fact or expression of opinion?
He then filed a constitutional complaint – with success. The Federal Constitutional Court has now decided that the post was not a statement of fact, but that it should be viewed as an expression of opinion.
The Court of Appeal failed to recognize that there was a connection between the content of the short message and the linked article. In addition, the Court of Appeal should have taken into account that development aid can also indirectly benefit the Taliban.
Protection against attack, not criticism
In this respect, Reichelt’s criticism of the federal government must be viewed as a critical expression of opinion that is protected by the Basic Law. In its decision, the Federal Constitutional Court points out that the state in particular must withstand harsh and polemical criticism.
State institutions should also be protected from verbal attacks. However, the protection should not lead to shielding them from public criticism.