A Berlin court acquitted comedian Sebastian Hotz of charges related to online posts perceived as condoning a crime following an assassination attempt against Donald Trump. The posts included satirical comments about Trump and expressed enjoyment concerning the death of fascists. Judge Andrea Wilms noted that these statements were clearly satire and lacked any intention to incite violence. Prosecutors argued the posts could be classified as hate crimes, citing rising violence against public figures. However, the judge concluded that promoting debate in a democracy is crucial, even if opinions are controversial.
Judge Andrea Wilms stated that Hotz's posts were clearly recognizable as satire and did not contain any intention to disturb public order, despite being in bad taste.
The prosecution argued that Hotz's statements could be classified as hate crimes, claiming they disrupted public order during a time of rising physical attacks on politicians.
The judge asserted in a liberal democracy, it is desirable for people to debate differing opinions, emphasizing that heated debates do not equate to legal punishability.
Prosecutor Marc-Alexander Liebig contended that satire must still align with legal standards, arguing that satirists are not exempt from the law.
Collection
[
|
...
]