No protection from shitstorms? Lawyer loses against popular right-wing online portal - despite threats

Cross in front of the law firm, threatening phone calls - and still no injunctive relief

She was insulted, threatened and her home address was published. Wooden crosses piled up in front of her law firm. However, the Regional Court of Berlin II does not see this as a violation of personal rights: a lawyer specializing in asylum law must accept an identifying report by the right-wing populist online portal NiUS about her role in connection with the Solingen attack. This was the verdict of April 3, 2025 (Ref. 27 O 304/24).

What legal and lawyers' associations such as the DAV and BRAK sharply criticized, the court considers to be covered by freedom of expression. And this despite the fact that the consequences of the reporting were massive for the person concerned.

Solingen, asylum law and the media fuse

The background: In the summer of 2024, three people were killed and several injured in an attack in Solingen. The suspected perpetrator - a rejected Syrian asylum seeker - had been issued an alert for deportation in 2023, but could not be found in his accommodation. He was represented by a lawyer in his asylum proceedings - including the plaintiff, a lawyer from Dresden.

NiUS took this as an opportunity to publish a series of reports linking the lawyer to an alleged "systematic abuse" of asylum law. Under headlines such as "Is Germany too stupid to deport", she was mentioned by name and linked to legally controversial stays - although there was no unlawful act by the lawyer.

Freedom of expression beats personal rights

The Berlin II Regional Court considers the reporting to be legally permissible: The statements were opinions or true statements of fact. The assessment of the lawyer's activities as part of a "legal aid system" was covered by the fundamental right to freedom of opinion (Art. 5 GG). Even exaggerated or absurd statements are permissible as long as they are based on comprehensible facts - which, according to the court, is the case here.

Even mentioning the name and referring to Instagram content is not objectionable. Anyone who presents themselves publicly on social media must accept that others will publicly discuss their own activities - even critically.

Freedom of the press does not mean pillorying

This ruling is bitter - especially for all those who are legally committed to human rights and the right to asylum. Yes, freedom of opinion is a valuable asset. But when reporting leads to real threats in practice, it is no longer just a legal balancing act - it is a question of responsibility.

The ruling sends out the wrong signal: anyone who shouts loud enough is allowed to name and shame and unleash the digital mob - and anyone who is affected has to swallow it. This has little to do with freedom of the press if it becomes a legitimized pillorying platform. Freedom of expression ends where people have to live in fear. That is also a fundamental right.