Deutschland fordert von allen EU-Staaten die meisten User-Daten von X an, wobei sich 87% der Ansuchen auf Rededelikte beziehen.
Rededelikte sind zum Bespiel Beleidigungen mit Schimpfwörtern, üble Nachrede, Verleumdungen (unwahre Behauptungen) oder Verhetzung.
In Deutschland (und Österreich) ist es strafbar andere Personen zu beleidigen, das gilt auch im Internet und gegenüber Politikern.
Dass es in Deutschland aber wegen eines Postings von einem "rassistischen Cartoon" (Meme) auch zu Hausdurchsuchungen kommen kann, wie das die amerikanische Dokumentation "60 Minutes" zeigt, ist mir neu.
Sollte das stimmen, wäre das meiner Meinung nach eine komplett unverhältnismäßige Auslegung.
Überhaupt denke ich, dass die Meinungsfreiheit viel liberaler ausgelegt werden sollte und auch emotionale Aussagen gegenüber Politikern und Personen des öffentlichen Lebens anders zu bewerten sein sollten als zum Beispiel im geschäftlichen oder privaten Kontext.
Auch die satirische Auseinandersetzung mit Memes, auch wenn manchmal überspitzt oder nicht politisch-korrekt, sollte meiner Meinung nach legal sein, da Memes oft humorvoll auch einen legitimen anderen Standpunkt zum Ausdruck bringen können.
Schwieriges Thema, wo man die Grenze ziehen soll, denke aber wie gesagt generell, dass die Meinungsfreiheit in einer Demokratie viel liberaler ausgelegt werden sollte. Emotionale Postings sollten nicht gleich kriminalisiert werden. Dass es in Deutschland wegen beleidigenden Internet-Postings zu Hausdurchsuchungen kommen kann, wäre für mich total unverhältnismäßig und eine gefährliche Einschränkung der Meinungsfreiheit.
Was sagt ihr zur Doku? Ist es in Deutschland wirklich so arg wie in der Doku dargestellt? Warum fordert Deutschland so viele User-Daten von X an? Wie weit sollte die Meinungsfreiheit gehen?
CBS documentary "60 Minutes": Policing the internet in Germany, where hate speech, insults are a crime (February 17th 2025)
~~~ embed:1891871376757117303 twitter metadata:ZGltZXRyYV9lY3JpdHx8aHR0cHM6Ly90d2l0dGVyLmNvbS9kaW1ldHJhX2Vjcml0L3N0YXR1cy8xODkxODcxMzc2NzU3MTE3MzAzfA== ~~~
X states that Germany demands more user data from the social network than any other EU country
~~~ embed:1891610683776635270 twitter metadata:TWFyaW9OYXdmYWx8fGh0dHBzOi8vdHdpdHRlci5jb20vTWFyaW9OYXdmYWwvc3RhdHVzLzE4OTE2MTA2ODM3NzY2MzUyNzB8 ~~~
~~~ embed:1891794034685026803 twitter metadata:Sm9hbmFDb3Rhcnx8aHR0cHM6Ly90d2l0dGVyLmNvbS9Kb2FuYUNvdGFyL3N0YXR1cy8xODkxNzk0MDM0Njg1MDI2ODAzfA== ~~~
Two German organizations demand unlimited real-time access to X's user data in advance to German election
~~~ embed:1891778201149399044 twitter metadata:R2VvcmdfUGF6ZGVyc2tpfHxodHRwczovL3R3aXR0ZXIuY29tL0dlb3JnX1BhemRlcnNraS9zdGF0dXMvMTg5MTc3ODIwMTE0OTM5OTA0NHw= ~~~
English
Of all EU member states, Germany requests the most user data from X, with 87% of requests relating to speech offenses.
Speech offenses are, for example, insults with swear words, defamation, libel (untrue statements) or incitement to hatred.
In Germany (and Austria), it is a punishable offense to insult other people, including on the Internet and against politicians.
However, it is news to me that raids can be carried out in Germany because of a posting of a “racist cartoon” (meme), as shown in the American documentary “60 Minutes”.
If that were true, I think it would be a completely disproportionate interpretation of free speech.
Above all, I think that freedom of speech should be interpreted much more liberally and that emotional statements towards politicians and public figures should be judged differently than in a business or private context, for example.
In my opinion, satirical expressions with memes, even if sometimes exaggerated or not politically correct, should also be legal in my opinion, as memes can often humorously express a legitimately different point of view.
It's a difficult topic where to draw the line, but as I said, I generally think that freedom of speech should be interpreted much more liberally in a democracy than portrayed in the documentary. Emotional posts on social media should not be criminalized immediately. In my opinion, it would be totally disproportionate and a dangerous restriction of freedom of speech to have people's homes raided in Germany because of offensive internet posts.
What do you think of the documentary? Is it really as bad in Germany as portrayed in the documentary? Why does Germany request so much user data from X? How far should freedom of expression go?
Posted Using INLEO
The rewards earned on this comment will go directly to the people( @davideownzall ) sharing the post on Reddit as long as they are registered with @poshtoken. Sign up at https://hiveposh.com. Otherwise, rewards go to the author of the blog post.
Die Deutschen haben offenbar wirklich ein Gen für Totalitarismus. Diesmal kommt er im Gewand des Antifaschismus und als "Kampf gegen Rechts" oder gegen "Haßrede" (was Haß ist, bestimmt das Regime)! Diese Klagsfluten sind eher ein Symptom der Inkompetenz. Da Habeck und Co. wissen, dass sie argumentativ nichts entgegensetzen können, versuchen sie die Einschüchterung der politischen Gegner. Oft ein Zeichen des baldigen Untergangs, wenn ein Politiker zu solchen rabiaten Mitteln greifen muss.
Krass, wie die Kollegen Staatsanwälte da kichern :-) Die Beschlagnahmung der Smartphones schiesst völlig über das Ziel hinaus.
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.
Kannst du mir auch nur einen einzigen Grund dafür nennen, welcher Umstand es jemandem erlauben soll oder kann, Persönlichkeiten des öffentlichen Lebens zu diffamieren, beleidigen oder auf unangebrachte Art und Weise lächerlich zu machen?
Warum müssen Redakteure, Journalisten und der Karikaturist bei jeder Veröffentlichung ihr Redaktionskürzel oder ihren vollständigen Namen angeben? Warum sollten andere Gesetze für den Verfasser von Lügen und Verunglimpfungen in und auf sozialen Medien gelten?
In einer gewissen Form exponierst du dich Tag für Tag in den Medien. Wie würdest du reagieren, wenn jemand die von dir hinterlassenen Informationen zu einem Pamphlet zusammenstückeln würde, welches alle Komponenten einer Verleumdung in sich birgt und dies dann weltweit verbreitet?
So, if I enjoyed and upvoted the Meme, will I get arrested too?
I don't know enough about it, but I think it's going too far to go after people who post memes. It's kind of crazy how far they are going.
Netzfund :-)
haha, hoffentlich ist das Video in Deutschland nicht verboten 😂
this is the twilight of freedom of speech, in uk also people are being arrested for sharing not aligned stuff on socials
!PIZZA
That is ridiculous! Criminalizing memes? That's insanity! There needs to be free speech, but most "democracies" have been trying to restrict it. It's a scary trend, and in Germany you can get thrown in jail for a meme?...
It's difficult to find a balance between the right to disseminate information and opinions and the right to spread lies and slander. Democracy has the bad quality of being able to destroy itself democratically.
!HUG
It's crazy to me how this amount of censorship is still happening in the world, as an Estonian I don't really feel too censored.
!BBH
Speziell in Deutschland ist diese Klagsflut von Politikern und Hausdurchsuchungen wegen Nichtigkeiten schon extrem aus dem Ruder gelaufen, wird Zeit dass da wieder einmal etwas Vernunft einkehrt, die glauben scheinbar ja wirklich schon sie sind Götter und empfinden jede (sehr oft berechtigte) Kritik als Majestätsbeleidigung.
!BEER
Schwierig, einfach ist das Thema nicht.
Müssen Politiker mehr ertragen? Wieso? Vor dem Gesetz ist doch jeder gleich, sollte zumindest so sein. Heißt aber auch, dass bei anderen das gleiche gemacht werden sollte.
Ich finde es problematisch, das zu viele denken, Ach ist doch nicht schlimm oder ach mir kann eh keiner was, bin doch Anonymus unterwegs...
Wozu Mobbing führen kann, sollte jeder wissen.
Und vielleicht ist es gar nicht verkehrt, das Politiker da auch hinterher sind, damit die Leute vielleicht zwei mal überlegen andere zu mobben.
Denn fürchte das andere Personen sich oft gar nicht wagen eine Anzeige zu stellen.
Meme ist dazu auch schwierig, wann ist es Meme wann nicht? Kann man sich immer damit rausreden?
Fazit, wirklich schwieriges Thema meiner Meinung nach
Freedom of speech does not exist, nor does liberty. Privacy is the only protection against totalitarians.
$PIZZA slices delivered:
(3/15) @davideownzall tipped @vikisecrets
View or trade
BEER.BEERHey @vikisecrets, here is a little bit of from @thehockeyfan-at for you. Enjoy it!Learn how to earn FREE BEER each day by staking your
BEER.Free speech censorship is getting worse in our society. But I didn't expect Germany to go to the length of making arrests because of "memes". I'm certain all this will result in something unsavory.
It is hard to tell when something is out of line especially when it is controversial
Freedom of speech can be sometimes do good or bad
that's just nuts! freedom of speech indeed.. censorship to an unreal level! 🤔✌️
The government actually needs to looked into this before it goes out of hand