Anti-Semitism Commissioner Blume has defended himself, among other things, against claims that he is an “anti-Semite”. Photo: picture alliance/dpa | Uli bridge
The anti-Semitism commissioner for the state of Baden-Württemberg has had to contend with many false and defamatory comments about himself on Twitter. LG Frankfurt am Main has decided that the platform must now do away with some of them.
announcement
Twitter must take down defamatory and false tweets if interested parties request it. This was decided by the regional court (LG) Frankfurt am Main in summary proceedings (judgment of December 14, 2022, Az. 2-03 O 325/22). Twitter must also remove similar comments with an identical statement core as soon as it becomes aware of the specific violation of the person’s rights. As for Facebook, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) already decided so in 2019.
On Twitter, users falsely claimed that the commissioner for anti-Semitism for the state of Baden-Württemberg, Michael Blume, had “a closeness to paedophilia” and that he had “had a fling”. He was also said to be involved in “anti-Semitic scandals” and that he was “part of an anti-Semitic pack”. Blume reported the comments multiple times in the process introduced by the Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG), according to the nonprofit HateAid, which supported him in the process. According to the NetzDG, Twitter should therefore have given him the opportunity to file a complaint. Furthermore, the platform should have signaled the possibility of filing a criminal complaint against the perpetrator.
However, Twitter left almost all of the comments online. They only disappeared over a week after intercourse. However, this didn’t happen because Twitter permanently removed them, but because the main account responsible for the defamation was blocked, according to HateAid.
Blume wanted Twitter to delete the comments and was successful in closing proceedings before LG.
Not all comments are inadmissible
The court found these defamatory allegations false. The term “anti-Semite” is an expression of opinion. However, it is illegal in this context because it does not contribute to the formation of public opinion. Rather, it is clearly aimed at creating a mood against the anti-Semitism commissioner.
After the anti-Semitism commissioner’s request to delete the comments, Twitter should have immediately stopped spreading them. LG explains: “The injunction applies not only if a release is repeated verbatim, but also if the messages it contains are similarly republished.”
However, the statements shouldn’t be prohibited in any context, LG continues. Only comments considered equivalent are affected. The core of the declaration must be identical. Twitter also has no general monitoring obligations regarding its approximately 237 million users. The platform only needs to check specific personal rights violations that have been alleged.
The House found admissible the statement of a user, according to which the anti-Semitic commissioner would have been included in the list of major anti-Semites in the world published annually by the Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles. It is not a question of whether admission is justified. It would concern information about inclusion in the list. In principle, information on this should be provided, the court said. On the other hand, the anti-Semitism commissioner must defend himself in the battle of public opinion.
HateAid: “Affected mostly left behind helpless”
HateAid welcomes the verdict, but also has some criticisms to make: “A lawsuit shouldn’t be the only way to enforce your rights on social media platforms. We’ve been observing these systemic deficits in content moderation on Twitter for a long time.” time, especially leave them alone they helplessly struck back.”
Blume was represented by attorney Chan-jo Jun of Jun Attorneys. “In an ideal world, companies try to follow the laws that apply to them as best they can. Twitter is now contradicting that,” says the lawyer and sees the outcome of the proceedings as a success: “The verdict will make everything much easier for future victims to assert their rights”.
The judgment is not final. It can be challenged with an appeal to the Higher Regional Court Frankfurt am Main.
cp/LTO drafting
