If satire is allowed to do anything – is it also allowed to do this? After Bohmermann's "defamatory poem", it is now El Hotzo's turn: once again satire stands before the court – and once again the question is where freedom of expression ends and criminal liability begins. This time it concerns Sebastian Hotz, alias El Hotzo, whose exaggerated reactions to the assassination attempt on Donald Trump tested the boundaries between cynical commentary and the criminal endorsement of violence. The Berlin-Tiergarten Local Court (Amtsgericht) has now ruled: cynicism is (still) not a crime. (Judgment of 23 July 2025 – Case No. 235 Ds 57/25)
The background to the judgment:
The Berlin-Tiergarten Local Court has acquitted the satirist Sebastian Hotz, known as "El Hotzo", of the charge of endorsing criminal offences (Section 140 StGB (German Criminal Code)). The proceedings were prompted by social media posts which Hotz published immediately after the assassination attempt on US presidential candidate Donald Trump in July 2024. In one of the posts, Hotz wrote "sadly just missed" and shortly thereafter "I think it is absolutely fantastic when fascists die."
The public prosecutor's office assessed this as a criminal endorsement of attempted murder, a qualifying predicate offence within the meaning of Section 140 No. 2 StGB, and argued that the statements were capable of disturbing public peace.
The offence requires that
– an unlawful catalogue offence within the meaning of Sections 126, 138 StGB (here: attempted murder)
– is publicly endorsed in a manner
– which is capable of disturbing public peace.
While the court did affirm the presence of a qualifying predicate offence, it did not see the specific statement as constituting a serious, approving assessment of the act. Rather, in the context of the defendant's public profile and his well-known satirical activity, the post was to be understood as an exaggerated, ironic commentary – and was thus covered by freedom of expression under Article 5 of the Basic Law (Grundgesetz). In addition, the statement was not capable of shaking trust in the legal order or of bringing about a disturbance of peace in the criminal-law sense. The fact that the post attracted media attention and provoked reactions in both directions was not capable of impairing the public's sense of security or its confidence in the rule of law. A concrete danger to public peace was not discernible.
The current status of the proceedings:
Despite the acquittal, the public prosecutor's office maintains its view and has lodged an appeal against the judgment. Whether an appeal on the facts (Berufung) or a leapfrog appeal on points of law (Sprungrevision) will follow depends on the written reasons for the judgment.
The assessment:
The Local Court's decision underlines that Section 140 StGB does not establish a general "taste police". Even provocative or cynical statements may be covered by the fundamental right to freedom of expression, provided that they do not seriously call for the endorsement of serious acts of violence or objectively approve of them. The context remains decisive – particularly in the case of satirical or artistic forms of expression.
The conclusion:
The case is yet another example of how carefully one must differentiate between criminal liability and constitutionally protected expression of opinion – particularly in the digital sphere, where form and tone are often pointed. Further developments at the next instance remain to be seen.
In all criminal law matters, attorney Ms Kumru Dursun will be happy to represent you.
