The "legal vacuum" of the internet - hatred and hate speech are not always prosecuted

Created: 06/07/2022, 12:57 p.m

By: Lukas Zigo

A policewoman dials into a digital interrogation room during a press presentation for online interrogation.

© Marius Becker/dpa

Research by the ZDF magazine Royale reveals the inadequacies of the police in the legal area of ​​the Internet.

Why we should prioritize online law enforcement.

Frankfurt – With the last ZDF magazine Royale before the summer break, Jan Böhmermann published investigative research results from over a year.

This very detailed and extensive research shows once again how important investigative work is and what effect it can have on a society.

But enough of the praise - let's see what exactly was discovered.

The topic: criminal prosecution on the Internet.

Who is responsible for this anyway?

Criminal prosecution is a state matter in Germany.

And so there is the possibility of a field test.

A collection of seven hate crimes were reported by 16 correspondents in 16 federal states.

Some didn't want to accept it at first.

"Mei, it's the internet," the correspondent in Bavaria has to listen to.

He advises her to report the comments to the platforms.

ZDF-Magazine Royale research reveals an inability of the German authorities on the Internet

For someone familiar with the workings of the police, the research results, as sobering as they may be, are by no means surprising.

The entire state apparatus has been making a bad impression on the subject of digitization for years.

The fax machine as the backbone of the German administrative apparatus makes this more than clear.

ZDF magazine Royale from May 27, 2022

The show can be viewed here in the ZDF media library

But the German police have also taken steps in the direction of the digital future - with the online police, for example, you could report offenses, right?

Theoretically yes, as long as you don't need proof for it, because you can't attach it there.

Just one of the examples that Böhmermann uses to show the lack of will to reform.

However, if a police officer does not take a report, or does his best not to, it is a criminal offense.

As politicians of all persuasions never tire of saying, the Internet is not a legal vacuum.

ZDF-Magazine Royale: Which picture resulted from the evaluation?

The Saxony-Anhalt police, here as an example, did not feel responsible: "You found something on the Internet?" said the police officer.

"Maybe ask consumer protection, what is it about?" To the correspondent's answer: "It's about hate comments on the Internet," she answered again very helpfully: "They appear hundreds of times on the Internet, what should we do about it?

You have to contact the operator of the website.

(...) With the best will in the world.

Young woman, when everyone comes here who sees hate comments.”

also read

Putin before "victory"?

Expert warns of NATO flop with Finland and Sweden - Turkey with new demand

UN scandal surrounding Putin envoy: After allegations of theft, he leaves the room - the EU Council chief calls after him

The correspondent remarked that this was a criminal offence, to which the policeman responded: "yes, but that's not police work".

After a little back and forth and the question of whether there was nothing better to do, one again comes up against the fundamental problem of law enforcement on the Internet.

Finally, she asked if it would be possible to report them, to which she replied: "No, then they would be in a queue over there somewhere".

And although some police departments knew how to deal with the subject better and more productively than was the case in Saxony-Anhalt, it must be said that the problems are probably systematic and that large parts of the police force have little understanding of the Internet legal area .

Hatred and hate speech on the internet – also with us

This topic is really nothing new for media professionals.

Depending on the topic, wild theories are set up under articles, groups, organizations or individuals are insulted and covered with hatred and hate speech.

To master it, Ippen.Media employs a team of full-time community managers.

Here is an example of how often nothing happens here, even with careful work and documentation.

Under an HNA article on the subject: "Corona demo in Kassel: That's why the demonstrators are taking to the streets by the thousands", comments like this could be read, an excerpt from a Facebook debate under the article: "I'm in favor of that especially for you the concentration camps should be reopened with a special invitation.

You are definitely right there.” (sic!)

The procedure for such comments is that the community manager inserts the comment into a document specially prepared by the Munich public prosecutor's office in order to be able to report it directly.

Often, the prosecutor's failure to follow up on the comments is justified.

Not in the case of the concentration camp invitation.

The community management sent the form for the verification request with all documents, content alleged incitement of the people, § 130 StGB.

Alleged hate speech - That happened

The lady in question also spoke extensively about Angela Merkel (Federal Chancellor AD) about the concentration camp comments.

The public prosecutor's office in Munich always forwards these documents to the relevant public prosecutor's office and so a letter came from the public prosecutor's office in Kassel regarding the request for verification.

In the letter, the proceedings of the alleged incitement to hatred are discontinued.

The reason: “There is no incitement of the people.

The statement that "the concentration camps should be reopened especially for you with a special invitation" does not refer to a definable population group that is listed in § 130 paragraph.

1 S. 1 is defined in more detail."

Vaccination and Corona: Radicalization often begins on the Internet

It is correct that the concentration camp posting is not directed against a “race” or ethnic group.

But paragraphs 3 and 4 already deal with trivializing and glorifying the deeds of the Nazis, which then leads to "or incites part of the population" through paragraph 2.

So it does not have to be directed against a religion etc., but against a population group - in this case the advocates of vaccination and corona measures.

This shows once again that even without the "detour" of the police, prosecution on the Internet often enjoys a low priority.

In view of the fact that the radicalizations, such as that of the gas station gunman Mario N. in Idar-Oberstein, also began on the Internet and were not prosecuted, one can certainly ask whether criminal prosecution on the Internet should not enjoy a higher priority in our society.

(Luke Zigo)