The debate surrounding Paragraph 188 of the German Criminal Code, which criminalizes the defamation of individuals in public life, has reignited with a surprising call for its abolition from within the conservative ranks. Jens Spahn, parliamentary group leader of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), has argued that the law, initially intended to protect local politicians and institutions, has instead fostered the perception of a special legal status for those in positions of power.
Spahn’s remarks, published in the “Süddeutsche Zeitung”, directly challenge the law’s intended purpose, stating that the outcome has been “the opposite of what we wanted to achieve”. He contends that the existing general defamation statute is sufficient to address abusive language, implying Paragraph 188 is redundant and contributes to a feeling of privilege among political figures.
The politician’s candid admission that he has personally utilized Paragraph 188 further complicates the issue. While disclosing he would not pursue charges for insults like “fool” or “idiot” Spahn explicitly referenced using the provision to address more severe and targeted attacks, including a particularly egregious slur related to his sexual orientation. He conceded, however, that such instances could also be prosecuted under the standard defamation laws.
The proposal to scrap Paragraph 188 is likely to spark a contentious political debate. Critics argue the law provides a vital shield against particularly vicious and targeted attacks aimed at deterring individuals, especially women and minorities, from engaging in public service. Supporters of the current legislation maintain that the additional protection offered by Paragraph 188 is necessary to safeguard the integrity of political discourse.
Spahn’s stance, while potentially damaging to the law’s reputation through his personal disclosure, highlights a growing unease within conservative circles about the perception of legal inequality and the potential chilling effect of overly broad protections for political figures. The call for repeal represents a significant challenge to the status quo and raises fundamental questions about the balance between freedom of speech and the protection of those engaged in public life, particularly within Germany’s increasingly polarized political landscape. The argument now centers on whether the perceived benefits of the law outweigh the concerns it has generated regarding fairness and the impression of preferential treatment.