The German Federal Ministry of the Interior has openly welcomed the idea of a legal requirement to identify oneself online. “The demand for a full‑name mandate is fundamentally understandable given the rise in online hate crime” a spokesperson for Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt (CSU) told “Welt” in its Wednesday edition. The ministry said it would “constructively accompany the discussion”.
Deputy chair of the Union caucus in the Bundestag, Günter Krings (CDU), urged Internet providers to enforce a real‑name policy for their services. “When Internet users operate with an open visor, that is the most effective means to curb hate and incitement while preserving freedom of expression without compromise” Krings told the newspaper.
In contrast, a deputy from the Federal Ministry of Justice clarified that earlier statements by Minister Stefanie Hubig (SPD) against a mandatory name policy remain relevant. Hubig had told “Tagesspiegel” last December: “I reject a state‑mandated full‑name requirement on the Internet. Those who wish to express opinions or experiences anonymously or under a pseudonym owe no accountability”.
The AfD, the Greens, and Die Linke have all opposed any tightening of the law. AfD Bundestag digital‑policy spokesperson Ruben Rupp announced opposition “with all means available to the opposition”. “Anonymity is a central component of a free and open digital discourse” Rupp said to “Welt”.
The Greens also rejected the proposal. “Anonymity and pseudonymity on the Internet are not luxuries but a cornerstone for freedom of opinion, press freedom, and informational self‑determination” digital‑policy spokesperson Rebecca Lenhard explained. “A real‑name requirement would target minorities, whistleblowers, and those who cannot speak in full name for professional or personal reasons”.
Digital‑policy spokesperson for Die Linke, Donata Vogtschmidt, stated, “We are against a full‑name mandate”. She noted that many offenders already post anonymously and that prohibiting anonymity would not solve the problem, while anonymity remains essential for members of discriminated groups.