• Mehr als 3 Millionen Wörter Inhalt
  • |
  • info@itmedialaw.com
  • |
  • Tel: 03322 5078053
Kurzberatung
Rechtsanwalt Marian Härtel - ITMediaLaw

No products in the cart.

  • en English
  • de Deutsch
  • Informationen
    • Ideal partner
    • About lawyer Marian Härtel
    • Quick and flexible access
    • Principles as a lawyer
    • Why a lawyer and business consultant?
    • Focus areas of attorney Marian Härtel
      • Focus on start-ups
      • Investment advice
      • Corporate law
      • Cryptocurrencies, Blockchain and Games
      • AI and SaaS
      • Streamers and influencers
      • Games and esports law
      • IT/IP Law
      • Law firm for GMBH,UG, GbR
      • Law firm for IT/IP and media law
    • The everyday life of an IT lawyer
    • How can I help clients?
    • Testimonials
    • Team: Saskia Härtel – WHO AM I?
    • Agile and lean law firm
    • Price overview
    • Various information
      • Terms
      • Privacy policy
      • Imprint
  • Services
    • Support and advice of agencies
    • Contract review and preparation
    • Games law consulting
    • Consulting for influencers and streamers
    • Advice in e-commerce
    • DLT and Blockchain consulting
    • Legal advice in corporate law: from incorporation to structuring
    • Legal compliance and expert opinions
    • Outsourcing – for companies or law firms
    • Booking as speaker
  • News
    • Gloss / Opinion
    • Law on the Internet
    • Online retail
    • Law and computer games
    • Law and Esport
    • Blockchain and web law
    • Data protection Law
    • Copyright
    • Labour law
    • Competition law
    • Corporate
    • EU law
    • Law on the protection of minors
    • Tax
    • Other
    • Internally
  • Podcast
    • ITMediaLaw Podcast
  • Knowledge base
    • Laws
    • Legal terms
    • Contract types
    • Clause types
    • Forms of financing
    • Legal means
    • Authorities
    • Company forms
    • Tax
    • Concepts
  • Videos
    • Information videos – about Marian Härtel
    • Videos – about me (Couch)
    • Blogpost – individual videos
    • Videos on services
    • Shorts
    • Podcast format
    • Third-party videos
    • Other videos
  • Contact
  • Informationen
    • Ideal partner
    • About lawyer Marian Härtel
    • Quick and flexible access
    • Principles as a lawyer
    • Why a lawyer and business consultant?
    • Focus areas of attorney Marian Härtel
      • Focus on start-ups
      • Investment advice
      • Corporate law
      • Cryptocurrencies, Blockchain and Games
      • AI and SaaS
      • Streamers and influencers
      • Games and esports law
      • IT/IP Law
      • Law firm for GMBH,UG, GbR
      • Law firm for IT/IP and media law
    • The everyday life of an IT lawyer
    • How can I help clients?
    • Testimonials
    • Team: Saskia Härtel – WHO AM I?
    • Agile and lean law firm
    • Price overview
    • Various information
      • Terms
      • Privacy policy
      • Imprint
  • Services
    • Support and advice of agencies
    • Contract review and preparation
    • Games law consulting
    • Consulting for influencers and streamers
    • Advice in e-commerce
    • DLT and Blockchain consulting
    • Legal advice in corporate law: from incorporation to structuring
    • Legal compliance and expert opinions
    • Outsourcing – for companies or law firms
    • Booking as speaker
  • News
    • Gloss / Opinion
    • Law on the Internet
    • Online retail
    • Law and computer games
    • Law and Esport
    • Blockchain and web law
    • Data protection Law
    • Copyright
    • Labour law
    • Competition law
    • Corporate
    • EU law
    • Law on the protection of minors
    • Tax
    • Other
    • Internally
  • Podcast
    • ITMediaLaw Podcast
  • Knowledge base
    • Laws
    • Legal terms
    • Contract types
    • Clause types
    • Forms of financing
    • Legal means
    • Authorities
    • Company forms
    • Tax
    • Concepts
  • Videos
    • Information videos – about Marian Härtel
    • Videos – about me (Couch)
    • Blogpost – individual videos
    • Videos on services
    • Shorts
    • Podcast format
    • Third-party videos
    • Other videos
  • Contact
Rechtsanwalt Marian Härtel - ITMediaLaw

Hitler is a gamer? At least he is a blocking reason for Facebook!

7. November 2022
in Law on the Internet
Reading Time: 4 mins read
0 0
A A
0
fb icon 325x325
Key Facts
  • The Frankenthal Regional Court ruled on the temporary blocking of a Facebook post about Adolf Hitler.
  • The plaintiff shared an article from Der Postillon with the title: "Terrible suspicion: Was Hitler a gamer?"
  • Facebook initially deleted the post and blocked the user account due to an alleged breach of community standards.
  • The court found that the blocking and deletion did not violate community standards and that there was no risk of repetition.
  • Sharing a post is considered to be implied attribution, without distancing oneself through one's own words.
  • The portrayal of Hitler as a gamer could be seen as trivializing and supporting his criminality.
  • The ruling raises questions regarding the automation of content deletion and the responsibility of platforms.

There are judgments that you hardly believe exist. The Frankenthal Regional Court has made such a decision, and all I can really say about it is “All the varnish has been drunk, or what?

Following facts:

On Oct. 18, 2019, the plaintiff shared a visible post, originally published on “Der Postillon,” titled “Schrecklicher Verdacht: War Hitler ein Gamer?” and accompanied by a photo showing Adolf Hitler sitting on a sofa while apparently playing with an Xbox controller. Already here one recognizes the exact factual work of the court, because it writes in the judgement of a Gameboy.

Screenshot 32

Facebook then temporarily deleted the post and suspended the plaintiff’s user account on the grounds that the post violated their community standards. On the same day, the post was reviewed again, which resulted in a restoration of the deleted post as well as an unblocking of the user account still on 18.10.2019. The plaintiff took action against this temporary blocking.

the defendant may not prohibit the expressions of opinion protected by the Basic Law from the outset. In the context of a weighing, the rights of the plaintiff from Article 5 para. 1 GG, outweigh the rights of the defendant under Articles 12, 14 GG. In addition, the defendant was not allowed to rely on the terms of use and community standards published during 2018, as a violation of sec. 307 para. 1 sentence 1 of the German Civil Code (BGB) and against Section 308 no. 5 of the German Civil Code (BGB) and the consent of the users would be forced. Further, the contribution at issue does not violate Defendants’ community standards. The plaintiff had merely shared another’s contribution without adopting the content as his own. The claim for data rectification follows from Article 16 sentence 1 of the GDPR, since the data storage is based on the assumption of a breach of the contractual terms. Due to the unlawfulness of the blocking, the defendant was obliged to lift it. Since a subsequent revocation was not possible, the plaintiff was entitled to a declaration of illegality in this respect. As a result of the unlawful deletion, the contribution should also be restored. The injunctive relief follows from §§ 1004 para. 1, 241 para. 2 BGB, whereby the risk of repetition was already indicated on the basis of the first offense. In addition, the arbitrary and non-transparent removal of contributions also constitutes a risk of repetition.

The plaintiff also asserted a claim for information with regard to the involvement of third-party companies and the involvement of the German government, as well as a claim for damages resulting from sections 280 and 249 of the German Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch – BGB) due to the violation of the ideal interests of the party concerned.

The court also saw no infringement of the Community standards in the temporary blocking, but above all did not want to recognize any risk of repetition:

Even if the temporary deletion of the post and blocking of the account were not considered to be covered by the community standards – which the court assumes, however – there is no risk of repetition. The specific conduct of the defendant, which restored the disputed post on the same day and unblocked the user account, shows that the defendant impliedly acknowledged that the disputed post did not violate its community standards. It is therefore not to be expected that the defendant will delete the same post again or take it as a reason to block the plaintiff’s user account again (LG Köln, Urt. v. 13.05.2019 – 21 O 283/18, Annex B31; LG Karlsruhe, judgment of 04.07.2019 – 2 O 160/18, Annex B33). There is already no indication whatsoever why the defendant should review the contribution again at all and then come to a different conclusion when reviewing it again.

However, the following two comments by the court are also interesting:

(a) First of all, the plaintiff cannot rely on the fact that he does not adopt the content of the disputed contribution as his own by sharing it. Already conceptually, sharing is to be considered as implied attribution and aims at pointing out the shared contribution. Something else could only be assumed if, in the context of sharing, a distancing of the sharing party from the content of the shared contribution is made by means of a supplementary contribution. Then, sharing could be considered merely a reference to foreign content and opinions. In the present case, however, there is a lack of any statement by the plaintiff on the shared contribution. This does not indicate any distancing. Rather, in the case of sharing without a supplementary comment, it must be assumed that the sharer wishes to refer solely to the shared contribution and makes it his own.

But to come to the actual topic:

(b) An image of Adolf Hitler as the leader of the NSDAP, which is undoubtedly a terrorist and criminal organization within the meaning of the Community Standards, must always be examined to determine whether the image constitutes support for that criminal organization. In the present case, there is no critical examination of the person of Adolf Hitler, nor is there an obviously ridiculous portrayal. Rather, the depiction of Adolf Hitler playing Game Boy on the sofa can be seen as trivialization. According to the OLG Munich (decision of 30.11.2018 – 24 W 1771/18, GRUR-RS 2018, 50857), an illustration together with verbal contributions without any distancing is to be regarded as support for Hitler or the NSDAP. From a reasonable and unbiased point of view, the disputed contribution could thus certainly be understood as hate speech in the context of an initial review. The temporary deletion is therefore in no way to be regarded as arbitrary, but was prompted by the plaintiff’s contribution. Due to the hate speech in question, the defendant was entitled to temporarily block the post as part of a quick reaction. In addition, it must be granted a certain degree of discretion within the framework of the initial assessment without this immediately entailing further legal consequences in the event of an incorrect initial assessment.

The full reasons for the ruling can be found here. One can argue a lot about the details of the ruling, especially whether Facebook is allowed to automatically delete posts and block accounts if they are clearly satire. No matter if it is only a few hours. Honestly, however, I also do not want to have stuck the skin of the court. A lawsuit for a short blocking of a Facebook account, with completely unsubstantiated 1500.00 euros in damages, an action for information regarding the involvement of the federal government, many other questionable applications and a plaintiff who has already paid 1500.00 euros in legal fees before the court, could well have been the reason that the chamber has perhaps not assumed the necessary seriousness of the actually interesting legal issues.

Marian Härtel
Author: Marian Härtel

Marian Härtel ist Rechtsanwalt und Fachanwalt für IT-Recht mit einer über 25-jährigen Erfahrung als Unternehmer und Berater in den Bereichen Games, E-Sport, Blockchain, SaaS und Künstliche Intelligenz. Seine Beratungsschwerpunkte umfassen neben dem IT-Recht insbesondere das Urheberrecht, Medienrecht sowie Wettbewerbsrecht. Er betreut schwerpunktmäßig Start-ups, Agenturen und Influencer, die er in strategischen Fragen, komplexen Vertragsangelegenheiten sowie bei Investitionsprojekten begleitet. Dabei zeichnet sich seine Beratung durch einen interdisziplinären Ansatz aus, der juristische Expertise und langjährige unternehmerische Erfahrung miteinander verbindet. Ziel seiner Tätigkeit ist stets, Mandanten praxisorientierte Lösungen anzubieten und rechtlich fundierte Unterstützung bei der Umsetzung innovativer Geschäftsmodelle zu gewährleisten.

Tags: DamagesFacebookHate speechInjunctive reliefJudgmentsKarlsruheLawsuitLegal issuesLegal question

Weitere spannende Blogposts

BGH to decide on Yelp reviews in January

No more free tissues at the pharmacy?
20. November 2019

Facts The applicant claims that Yelp is injunctive relief, determination and damages for its assessment representations. As many will know,...

Read moreDetails

BGH will decide on the reimbursement of bets

Lottery brokerage/gambling/betting on the Internet without permission?
17. May 2024

It's about time. The First Civil Senate of the Federal Court of Justice has to decide whether a sports betting...

Read moreDetails

When will the BGH finally get involved in the matter of FernUSG and coaching contracts?

b41de75f28e43e4a77e9129cf8abd64c
24. September 2024

In a recent ruling (OLG Stuttgart, judgment of 01.08.2024 - 4 U 101/24), the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart declared...

Read moreDetails

Stralsund Regional Court: EUR 4,000 in monetary compensation for sending sexting and dickpix messages

Stralsund Regional Court: EUR 4,000 in monetary compensation for sending sexting and dickpix messages
10. June 2024

On June 6, 2024, the 4th Chamber of the Stralsund Regional Court issued a ruling on the civil law consequences...

Read moreDetails

Telefonica must pay out 225,000 euros in Easy Money credit to customers

Telefonica must pay out 225,000 euros in Easy Money credit to customers
7. November 2022

The 8th Senate of the Munich Higher Regional Court ruled that a Telefonica Germany customer should receive 224,840.02 euros plus...

Read moreDetails

Telephone number in revocation instruction

Online shops: Attention to advertising with EIA
25. January 2019

The Schleswig-Holstein Higher Regional Court has strengthened the rights of consumers in a decision issued. The defendant distributes telecommunications services,...

Read moreDetails

Can I talk badly about a competitor?

Can I talk badly about a competitor?
1. July 2019

If it is public, you should be careful with it. This is especially true if the content is not true,...

Read moreDetails

BGH: Paarship has claim to remuneration despite revocation

BGH considers Uber Black to be anti-competitive
7. November 2022

The III Civil Senate of the Federal Court of Justice, which is responsible among other things for service contract law,...

Read moreDetails

The limits of German jurisdiction in B2B claims against US social media services

The limits of German jurisdiction in B2B claims against US social media services
8. January 2024

In an exciting ruling, the Regional Court of Lübeck decided that German courts do not have jurisdiction over contractual disputes...

Read moreDetails
Q&A: Legal issues for game developers
Law and computer games

5-day guide: Founding a game development studio

5. August 2025

As a support for young studios, this series summarizes the essential steps for founding a game development company. The guide...

Read moreDetails
EU Inc: Why Europe needs a unified startup society now

EU Inc: Why Europe needs a unified startup society now

22. July 2025
BGH considers Uber Black to be anti-competitive

BGH shakes up the coaching industry – What applies now?

21. July 2025
Growth hacking and viral marketing – legal requirements

Games funding 2025 – back at last!

20. July 2025
Ownership of software – Who actually owns the code?

Ownership of software – Who actually owns the code?

14. July 2025

Podcastfolge

d5e1e6cad87cb839a9e23af79034bd94

AI in the legal system: Towards a digital future of justice

16. October 2024

In this fascinating podcast episode, we take a deep dive into the world of artificial intelligence (AI) and its impact...

Read moreDetails
86fe194b0c4a43e7aef2a4773b88c2c4

On the dark side? A lawyer in the field of tension of innovative start-ups

26. September 2024
3c671c5134443338a4e0c30412ac3270

“Digital law decoded” with lawyer Marian Härtel

26. September 2024
75df8eaa33cd7d3975a96b022c65c6e4

Life as an IT lawyer, work-life balance, family and my career

26. September 2024
8ffe8f2a4228de20d20238899b3d922e

Web3, blockchain and law – a critical review

26. September 2024

Video

My transparent billing

My transparent billing

10. February 2025

In this video, I talk a bit about transparent billing and how I communicate what it costs to work with...

Read moreDetails
Fascination between law and technology

Fascination between law and technology

10. February 2025
My two biggest challenges are?

My two biggest challenges are?

10. February 2025
What really makes me happy

What really makes me happy

10. February 2025
What I love about my job!

What I love about my job!

10. February 2025
  • Privacy policy
  • Imprint
  • Contact
  • About lawyer Marian Härtel
Marian Härtel, Rathenaustr. 58a, 14612 Falkensee, info@itmedialaw.com

Marian Härtel - Rechtsanwalt für IT-Recht, Medienrecht und Startups, mit einem Fokus auf innovative Geschäftsmodelle, Games, KI und Finanzierungsberatung.

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password? Sign Up

Create New Account!

Fill the forms below to register

All fields are required. Log In

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In
  • Informationen
    • Ideal partner
    • About lawyer Marian Härtel
    • Quick and flexible access
    • Principles as a lawyer
    • Why a lawyer and business consultant?
    • Focus areas of attorney Marian Härtel
      • Focus on start-ups
      • Investment advice
      • Corporate law
      • Cryptocurrencies, Blockchain and Games
      • AI and SaaS
      • Streamers and influencers
      • Games and esports law
      • IT/IP Law
      • Law firm for GMBH,UG, GbR
      • Law firm for IT/IP and media law
    • The everyday life of an IT lawyer
    • How can I help clients?
    • Testimonials
    • Team: Saskia Härtel – WHO AM I?
    • Agile and lean law firm
    • Price overview
    • Various information
      • Terms
      • Privacy policy
      • Imprint
  • Services
    • Support and advice of agencies
    • Contract review and preparation
    • Games law consulting
    • Consulting for influencers and streamers
    • Advice in e-commerce
    • DLT and Blockchain consulting
    • Legal advice in corporate law: from incorporation to structuring
    • Legal compliance and expert opinions
    • Outsourcing – for companies or law firms
    • Booking as speaker
  • News
    • Gloss / Opinion
    • Law on the Internet
    • Online retail
    • Law and computer games
    • Law and Esport
    • Blockchain and web law
    • Data protection Law
    • Copyright
    • Labour law
    • Competition law
    • Corporate
    • EU law
    • Law on the protection of minors
    • Tax
    • Other
    • Internally
  • Podcast
    • ITMediaLaw Podcast
  • Knowledge base
    • Laws
    • Legal terms
    • Contract types
    • Clause types
    • Forms of financing
    • Legal means
    • Authorities
    • Company forms
    • Tax
    • Concepts
  • Videos
    • Information videos – about Marian Härtel
    • Videos – about me (Couch)
    • Blogpost – individual videos
    • Videos on services
    • Shorts
    • Podcast format
    • Third-party videos
    • Other videos
  • Contact
  • en English
  • de Deutsch
Kostenlose Kurzberatung