In the dispute over a hate campaign against the Green MP Renate Künast, the Federal Constitutional Court has upgraded personality rights – also in favor of politicians who, as government officials, actually have to put up with more than other people. The Karlsruhe court overturned a judgment of the Berlin Superior Court and ordered a new examination. From a list of 22 posts directed against Künast on Facebook, the Berlin court classified only 12 as criminal insults. According to the Karlsruhe decision, the constitution sets limits to hate speech and slander, even when they are directed against public figures.
The controversy was sparked by a Künast sentence from 1986. At that time, another Green politician was asked in the Berlin House of Representatives how she stood by the demands of the North Rhine-Westphalia Greens to make sexual acts on children exempt from punishment. In addition, the minutes noted an interjection by Künast: “Come on, if there is no violence involved!” Which was obviously intended as a clarification of the rumored Greens demand from NRW. 30 years later – the debate about the former position of the Greens on pedophilia had boiled up again – a network activist put the sentence in her mouth on Facebook: “Come on, if there is no violence involved, sex with children is quite ok It’s good now.”
Künast went to court, and in the course of the trial she was bombarded with numerous hate mails. She asked Facebook for information about users’ inventory data – but in a first, heavily criticized judgment in 2019, the Berlin Regional Court considered a long list of such comments to be permissible, including “dirty pig”, “drecks cunt” and “piece of shit”. The regional court partially corrected itself on Künast’s complaint, and the higher court in the next instance considered further posts to be insulting.
The Federal Constitutional Court has now objected to the Court of Appeal’s assessment of the ten posts considered permissible. Including the formulations “Pedophile Trulla”, “The old one has a damaged roof, she’s like chives, you can only do it” and “She wanted to be the brightest candle, pedo dirt”. Freedom of expression to protect “power criticism” is still important. However, they do not allow “every personal insult against public officials”.
Written hate speech weighs heavier
The broad impact of social networks is particularly important. “Because a willingness to participate in state and society can only be expected if adequate protection of their personal rights is guaranteed for those who get involved and make a public contribution.” Although one shouldn’t put every word on the scales, a higher degree of restraint is to be expected, especially when it comes to written statements.
Renate Künast called the decision “a piece of legal history in the digital age”. The courts are thus obliged to “very concrete consideration in individual cases – and to demand restraint on social media as well.