OLG Frankfurt am Main: No Injunctive Relief for "Lateral Thinking Movement" Statement
The Frankfurt am Main Higher Regional Court (OLG) has published a decision regarding a legal dispute concerning statements made in a national daily newspaper. The plaintiff had sought injunctive relief against the newspaper's report, which claimed the plaintiff cooperates "with supporters of the lateral thinking movement."
The OLG ruled that the plaintiff is not entitled to injunctive relief in this specific instance. The court classified the statement as an expression of opinion, supported by sufficient factual evidence in the report.
Background of the Legal Dispute
The plaintiff provides consulting services as a profiler and frequently appears as a speaker at various events. The defendant, a national daily newspaper, reported on the plaintiff's participation as an expert in a television program.
During summary proceedings, the plaintiff challenged the newspaper's statement that it cooperates "with supporters of the lateral thinking movement." This particular assertion formed the core of the legal action.
OLG Frankfurt am Main's Decision on the "Lateral Thinking Movement" Report
The Regional Court had initially granted the plaintiff's request for an injunction concerning this statement. However, the newspaper's subsequent appeal to the Higher Regional Court proved successful.
The OLG clarified that the plaintiff was not entitled to injunctive relief. The court reasoned that the contested statement is a value judgment, therefore an expression of opinion. It also noted that the term "lateral thinker" movement is inherently vague.
Defining the "Lateral Thinking Movement"
The OLG provided a working definition for the term, characterizing it as an "extremely heterogeneous initiative that cannot be clearly outlined." This movement emerged following the outbreak of the Corona pandemic.
According to the court, its participants typically deny the pandemic or the Corona virus, reject state-imposed protective measures, and disseminate conspiracy narratives. This broad and somewhat undefined nature contributed to the court's classification of the statement as a value judgment.
Factual Basis for the Newspaper's Assessment
The defendant newspaper had based its assessment on statements and contacts with four specific individuals named in its article. The OLG found that the newspaper provided sufficient factual evidence to support its value judgment.
It was undisputed that the plaintiff had collaborated with all four named persons. Readers would naturally infer that the plaintiff was working with these individuals towards specific goals or on shared endeavors. Understanding the legal implications of public statements and associations is crucial for individuals and organizations alike.
While the precise goals or nature of this collaboration remained unspecified, the court deemed it sufficient that these four individuals were listed as "hand-picked authors" working for the plaintiff on its publishing website. Crucially, the article did not explicitly indicate that this cooperation was directly linked to the "lateral thinking movement" itself. Such cases often highlight the tension between freedom of the press and the right to protection against defamation.
Conclusion
The Frankfurt am Main Higher Regional Court's ruling underscores the legal distinction between factual claims and expressions of opinion in media reporting. It demonstrates that statements deemed value judgments, even if controversial, may not be subject to injunctive relief if they are adequately substantiated by factual evidence.