More on Freedom of Speech in Germany

From PFS member David Dürr (November 2, 2025; my translation; with permission), followed by some additional information summarized by Grok.

Lèse-majesté according to § 188 StGB

David Dürr

Robert Habeck will soon be forgotten; which is just as well for politicians who have brought so little to the country; the same probably applies to Annalena Baerbock. The only thing that might keep the two in memory a little longer is their rabid reactions to insults to their majesty. Habeck accumulated more than 800 criminal complaints, Baerbock at least more than 500 (as of today, perhaps the numbers will still rise). And accordingly, numerous criminal proceedings ensued, sometimes with police raids early in the morning at the homes of the offenders, and remarkably harsh convictions. This is because the Criminal Code is particularly strict when it comes to lèse-majesté.

It does, admittedly, also prohibit the insulting of mere mortals: § 185 of the Criminal Code threatens imprisonment of one month up to one year for this, and if the insult occurs publicly, even imprisonment of up to two years (or a fine). The same applies according to § 186 to defamation against mere mortals.

However, it is different for majesties: According to § 188, this includes any “person involved in the political life of the people,” whereby it is clarified: “The political life of the people extends all the way down to the municipal level.” If such a person, for instance the mayor of a small municipality or a federal minister, is insulted, and this affects their majestic position in full public view, then this is not simply an insult, but something completely different—namely, lèse-majesté. And precisely for this reason, it is punished not only with one month up to two years of imprisonment, but with up to three years of imprisonment (or a correspondingly high fine), and in the case of defamation, even two and a half times as severely, which means with at least three months up to five years of imprisonment (whereas a fine is no longer even considered).

How this unequal treatment of majesties and mere mortals can be reconciled with Article 3 of the Basic Law—“All people are equal before the law.”—is something someone should explain to me sometime. But apart from that, if anything, it would be expected that politicians should tolerate unfriendly criticism rather more than mere mortals. They choose their exposure in the public sphere voluntarily, they themselves deliver their pithy speeches, and above all, it is they who impose a multitude of restrictions, taxes, and other harassments upon the people. In that case, one has oneself to blame if an annoyed victim of harassment accidentally lets slip something like “numbskull.”

There are people who find it monstrous when, in Thailand, insults to the king are punished with several years in prison; they say that is merely an instrument to suppress unwelcome critics!

In Germany, of course, it is said not to be so: Here—the political mainstream asserts with emphasis—it is not about majesties, but about something completely different. When a motion by the AfD to abolish § 188 was recently debated in the Bundestag, it sounded like this from the GroKo (Grand Coalition): These “persons involved in the political life of the people” are the official bearers of the democratic process, and therefore of the fundamental structure of our state system. If they were not protected with particular severity, ultimately the entire state would be endangered.

If that is not a reason for the immediate abolition of § 188!

***

Germany’ paragraph 188 regarding insulting politicians in translation and with its consequences (Grok):

§ 188 StGB (German Criminal Code) addresses “Insult, malicious gossip and defamation directed at persons in political life” (Gegen Personen des politischen Lebens gerichtete Beleidigung, üble Nachrede und Verleumdung).

Official English Translation (from gesetze-im-internet.de)

(1) If an offence of insult (section 185) is committed publicly, in a meeting or by disseminating content (section 11(3)) against a person involved in the political life of the people, for motives connected with the position of the insulted person in public life, and the act is suitable for making his public activities substantially more difficult, the penalty is imprisonment of up to three years or a fine. The political life of the people extends down to the municipal level.

(2) Under the same conditions, malicious gossip (section 186) is punishable by imprisonment from three months to five years and defamation (section 187) by imprisonment from six months to five years.

Key Elements

• Protected persons: Politicians and others “in the political life of the people,” from federal/national level down to local/municipal politicians (e.g., mayors, city council members).
• Acts covered:
  • Simple insult (§ 185: expressing contempt or disregard).
  • Malicious gossip (§ 186: spreading unproven damaging claims).
  • Defamation (§ 187: spreading knowingly false damaging claims).
• Additional requirements (must all apply):
  • Committed publicly, in a meeting, or via disseminated content (e.g., social media, online posts).
  • Motivated by the person’s political position/role.
  • The act must be suitable (geeignet) for substantially hindering their public/political work.

This is a qualified (aggravated) version of general insult laws, introduced/amended around 2021 to better protect political figures from harassment that could impair democracy.

Consequences / Penalties

• For insult (§ 188 Abs. 1): Fine or imprisonment up to 3 years (higher than the standard § 185, which is usually up to 1 year or a fine, and often requires a private complaint).
• For malicious gossip: 3 months to 5 years imprisonment.
• For defamation: 6 months to 5 years imprisonment.

Additional notes on enforcement:

• Unlike basic insult (§ 185), this can often be prosecuted ex officio (by authorities without a formal complaint from the victim) in many cases.
• Penalties are determined by courts based on severity, context, prior record, etc. Fines are common (daily rates system); prison is rarer but possible, especially for severe/repeated cases.
• Recent examples include fines for derogatory nicknames or social media posts against politicians if they meet the criteria.

The law is controversial in Germany, with debates about free speech vs. protecting democracy. Some political groups (e.g., AfD) have called for its repeal.

Examples of “insulted” politicians, the sort of insults, the numbers of complaints by politicians and the kind and size of fines (Grok)

Here are real-world examples, statistics, and typical outcomes under § 188 StGB (as of 2025–2026 data).

Common Types of Insults

Courts assess whether the insult is public, motivated by the politician’s role, and suitable for substantially hindering their work (e.g., by damaging reputation, inciting harassment, or eroding public trust). Simple criticism is usually protected, but value judgments or false claims often cross the line.

• Value judgments/insults: “Schwachkopf” (imbecile/idiot) against Robert Habeck; “dumme Schlampe” (stupid slut) against Angela Merkel; “Volksschädling” (people’s pest/destroyer, NS-era term) against Olaf Scholz; “Lügenfritz” (Lying Fritz) against Friedrich Merz; “Suffkopf” (drunkard); “Lackaffe” (dandy/fop).
• False or exaggerated claims (often malicious gossip or defamation): Accusations of corruption, pedophilia, “hating freedom of speech,” “Volksvernichtung” (people’s extermination), or misrepresenting quotes/statements.
• Memes, photomontages, and posts: Satirical images (e.g., Nancy Faeser with a sign “I hate freedom of speech”) or posters at demonstrations.

Note: Not all cases result in conviction. Courts sometimes acquit if the statement is seen as protected satire, political criticism, or lacking sufficient reach/impact (e.g., the “Volksschädling” case was ultimately acquitted in higher instance).

Notable Politicians and Complaints

Prominent politicians (especially from the former traffic-light coalition) have filed numerous complaints, often leading to investigations:

• Robert Habeck (Greens): Over 800 criminal complaints (many under § 188).
• Annalena Baerbock (Greens): Around 513 complaints.
• Others: Alice Weidel (AfD) has filed hundreds; lower numbers for politicians like Marco Buschmann (FDP: ~26).

National statistics:

• 2025: 4,792 investigations for insults against politicians (up 8% from 4,439 in 2024 and ~85% from 2023).
• Sharp rise post-2021 reform (many cases now prosecuted ex officio). In states like Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg, cases increased significantly year-over-year.

Many complaints come from social media (X/Twitter, Facebook), demonstrations, or online memes.

Kinds and Sizes of Fines / Penalties

Most cases end in fines (Geldstrafe) via daily rates (Tagessätze) based on the offender’s income—typically 15–90 days. Prison is rare for pure insults but possible in severe/repeated cases or when combined with defamation.

Examples of outcomes:

• ~€900 fine + house search: Woman for sharing a satirical meme involving Baerbock and Scholz.
• 30 daily rates (about one month’s income): Man fined for calling Chancellor Merz “Lügenfritz” in a social media comment.
• 7 months prison on probation: Journalist/editor for a photomontage/post about Nancy Faeser (seen as defamatory, not clear satire).
• Earlier case: Fine imposed for calling Merkel “dumme Schlampe” on Facebook (though some higher courts later showed nuance on reach/impact).

Fines vary widely by income, severity, and prior record. House searches (often early-morning) occur even in milder cases to seize devices, which has drawn heavy criticism as disproportionate.

Context and Controversy

This law is highly debated. Critics (including parts of AfD, FDP, and some legal experts) call it a “lèse-majesté” rule or special protection for politicians that chills free speech. Supporters argue it protects democracy from harassment that deters political engagement. Many cases are dropped or result in minor penalties, but the volume of investigations and raids fuels public backlash.

If you want details on a specific politician, case, or year, let me know!

Chancellor Friedrich Merz case (Grok)

Friedrich Merz (CDU), Germany’s Chancellor since late 2025, has been involved in numerous § 188 StGB cases, both as a complainant (filing complaints) and as the target of insults. He is one of the more active politicians in pursuing legal action against online criticism.

Key Recent Cases (2025–2026)

These mostly stem from comments under official posts (e.g., police Facebook updates about Merz’s visits) during his time as Chancellor or opposition leader.

• “Lügenfritz” (Lying Fritz) case (most prominent recent example):
  • A Facebook user commented “Lügenfritz” under a Heilbronn police post about a no-fly zone during Merz’s visit in October 2025.
  • The Amtsgericht Öhringen issued a Strafbefehl (criminal order) on March 19, 2026: 30 daily rates (Tagessätze), roughly equivalent to one month’s income (often cited as around €900–€2,000 depending on the offender’s net income).
  • Reasoning: The term was deemed a punishable insult under § 188 StGB because it was public, motivated by his political role, and suitable for eroding trust in his integrity and potentially inciting aggression/hindering his work. The decision became final (rechtskräftig).
  • This has sparked strong backlash, with critics (including FDP politicians) calling it disproportionate and demanding repeal of § 188.
• “Lackaffe” (foppish dandy / varnished monkey) case:
  • Another Facebook comment under a similar police post.
  • Amtsgericht Heilbronn ruled it a criminal insult under § 188. A fine was imposed (details vary by report, but similar to other cases). Some reports note it was later settled with a monetary payment to close the case.
  • Courts distinguished this from milder terms like “Pinocchio” or “Lügen-Kasper,” which were often not prosecuted or dropped as protected (exaggerated) political criticism.
• Other insults pursued:
  • Terms like “Arschloch” (asshole), “drecks Suffkopf” (dirty drunkard), “kleiner Nazi” (little Nazi), “Parasit.”
  • In one case, a 66-year-old pensioner was fined €3,000 for a letter calling Merz a “Parasit” among other things.

Contrast: Not all comments lead to conviction. “Pinocchio” was often viewed as allowable satire/criticism and led to investigations but not always penalties.

Broader Context: Merz’s Complaints

• Hundreds of cases: Since around 2021 (as opposition leader/CDU head), Merz has filed or supported hundreds of criminal complaints for insults, often via specialized lawyers or services. Estimates include ~300 active or related proceedings by late 2025/early 2026.
• Some led to house searches (including early-morning raids), even in cases involving elderly or disabled individuals. One search on a wheelchair user for “kleiner Nazi” was later criticized.
• As Chancellor, authorities (police/prosecutors) proactively handle many under § 188, sometimes ex officio.

Public Reaction

These cases have fueled intense debate about free speech, with media and opposition figures arguing § 188 creates “special protection” for politicians and chills criticism. Supporters say it prevents harassment that could undermine democratic functions. FDP leaders and others have called for abolishing the paragraph.

Merz himself has largely remained silent on individual cases in public statements.