A friend of mine fell for that "news", too. The rules in Germany are pretty strict, and the freedom of speech is taken very seriously - even though people in the US might not think so. The first paragraph of the German constitution is "Human dignity is unviolable" - and that is more important than freedom of speech. It might be different in the US, and that's okay, having different values is not a crime, even though Vance thinks that of the EU.
Here's a translation of an article with actual legal background about a case of heavy-shit-insults and defamation against Renate Künast, another politician. Original: https://rsw.beck.de/aktuell/daily/meldung/detail/kg-kuenast-erzielt-teilerfolg-gegen-social-media-plattform-im-verfahren-um-gestattung-der-herausgabe-von-nutzerdaten
Translation by AI with focus on legal language:
Right to Information as a Merely Preparatory Measure
In the proceedings, the Higher Regional Court (KG) pointed out that the asserted claim under § 14(4) of the German Telemedia Act (TMG) for the disclosure of user data was merely a preparatory one. This claim exhibited significant procedural and substantive differences compared to more extensive claims, such as injunctions against statements or claims for other remedies (e.g., financial compensation). Accordingly, only the social media platform, as the service provider in question, was involved in the proceedings, while the authors of the 22 comments were not.
Comments Were Massively Defamatory
The KG further stated that six out of the sixteen comments under review in the appeal proceedings met the legal definition of criminal defamation under § 185 of the German Criminal Code (StGB), despite the strict requirements established by the Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG) for any restrictions on the fundamental right to freedom of expression. These six statements contained such a massive defamatory character that they could be classified as defamatory criticism (Schmähkritik) or equivalent formal insults. Even considering the thematic context in which the users had written their posts, these verbal outbursts could only be regarded as insults directed at Künast rather than contributions to a factual debate. The comments lacked any substantive engagement with the topic at hand. Instead, the applicant was entirely stripped of her dignity, being falsely portrayed as a supporter of decriminalizing "consensual or non-violent" sex with children, as suggested by the initial report.
Künast as the Target of Misogynistic and Degrading Obscenities
Protected by internet anonymity, the applicant was made the target of misogynistic and degrading obscene attacks. Through unrestrained abuse, including particularly drastic expressions from the realm of obscene language, she was subjected to an excessively exaggerated form of attack, where personal vilification took center stage, and any factual discussion was entirely displaced. In such cases of defamation, regardless of the initial cause of the outbursts, the broad limits of permissible expression were clearly exceeded, reaching the threshold of unjustifiable defamatory criticism or an equivalent formal insult.
Künast Unsuccessful Regarding Ten Remaining Comments
However, the applicant’s appeal was unsuccessful regarding the remaining ten comments under review. The KG made it clear that this did not mean it failed to recognize that these comments also contained significantly defamatory remarks and derogatory statements against the applicant. However, considering constitutional requirements, the court determined that the threshold for criminal defamation under § 185 StGB was not met in these cases. Specifically, there was no instance of defamation exempt from a balancing test (such as an attack on human dignity, a formal insult, or defamatory criticism). Furthermore, the infringement of the applicant's personal rights did not reach a level of severity that, when considering the specific context, would classify the statements as mere personal degradation and vilification, as was the case with the six aforementioned comments.
No Grounds for Strengthening Personality Rights at Present
The KG emphasized that it was fully aware of the deterioration of public discourse, particularly due to the anonymity of the internet, which has led to a coarsening and even radicalization of social discussions. However, this alone did not justify a different legal assessment. The question raised by the applicant—whether the stricter standards for public figures, required by constitutional law, were still appropriate and whether the legal system and the judiciary should offer greater protection to political decision-makers—was not dismissed as irrelevant. Nevertheless, the existing legal framework and the corresponding case law of the Federal Constitutional Court did not currently provide room for an enhancement of personality rights in this regard.
///
Meaning: Always dig a little deeper. It's usually quite easy to find a little more background that puts the flashy "news" into perspective.