US Diplomat Slams Germany's Free Speech Laws Over 'Lying Fritz' Case
Hızlı Bakış
- Senior US diplomat Sarah Rogers criticized Germany's free speech laws, calling its censorship practices into question over the conviction of a citizen fined for calling Chancellor Friedrich Merz 'Lying Fritz'.
- Rogers argued that European courts' claims to censor the internet worldwide undermine free speech principles.
Yapay zekâ özeti
Senior U.S. diplomat Sarah Rogers accused Berlin of censorship, slamming Germany’s free speech laws over the case of a German citizen who was convicted and fined for referring to Chancellor Friedrich Merz as Lügenfritz — or “lying Fritz.”
“An argument I often hear is, ‘given Germany’s unique history, shouldn’t we grant it some deference to censor?’ Here’s the kind of thing German censorship extends to,” Rogers posted on X on Thursday, attaching a screenshot of a media report about the case.
The initial investigation stemmed from a Facebook post by police in the Germany’s southwestern city of Heilbronn regarding security measures ahead of a Merz visit last year. The post garnered numerous critical and insulting comments from the platform’s users, which law enforcement forwarded to prosecutors to assess whether they constituted criminal insults against a politician, a police officer told POLITICO in February.
Under a provision of Germany’s criminal code — which designates it an offense to insult or belittle political figures — such investigations are not uncommon, although most cases are dropped.
This is not the first time Rogers has weighed in on free speech in Germany. In February, she commented on another widely reported investigation involving a retiree who wrote “Pinocchio is coming” under the very same Facebook post by Heilbronn police.
According to German newspaper Tagesspiegel, prosecutors checked 38 comments for possible insults but dropped many of the cases, including that of the retiree. For some of the other defendants, including one man who described Merz as “Lackaffe” — a showboat — proceedings were closed after a required payment of €100.
In her comments, Rogers argued the issue stretched beyond Germany’s borders. “That argument would be cleaner if European courts had not repeatedly claimed the prerogative to censor the entire, worldwide internet,” she wrote.
“The truth is these issues of extraterritorial enforcement are still being worked out. We won’t let foreign governments compromise our First Amendment.”
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution does not exempt foreign citizens from punishment under their own countries’ laws.
