The Regional Court of Cologne ruled on March 15, 2017 (case reference: 28 O 324/16) that the reproduction of abbreviated quotes that distort the meaning is inadmissible.
They constitute an untrue statement of fact and therefore encroach on the general personal rights of the person concerned.
Reporting with abbreviated quotations
The lawsuit was filed by a history professor who had frequently made critical comments about Chancellor Angela Merkel’s refugee policy.
He also repeatedly criticized the “talk of a welcoming culture”.
The General Students’ Committee (AStA) reported on the professor’s statements in two publications, quoted him several times and described him as “right-wing extremist”.
The professor also legitimizes violence against refugees by expressing in his statements that setting fire to and besieging refugee homes is a natural reaction of angry citizens.
According to the AStA, the professor is spreading theories that glorify violence with these statements, treats refugees with sheer hatred and stands for racism.
Abbreviated quotations lead to a distortion of meaning and are inadmissible
In reality, however, the AStA report was very abbreviated.
Some of the supporting quotes were incomplete and taken out of context.
Relativizing parts of the quotes such as “bad” and “thank God nobody has died in Germany yet” were omitted.
The professor obtained an injunction against the AStA by way of a temporary injunction.
Following an objection by the AStA, the Regional Court largely granted the professor’s request in its judgment after an oral hearing.
Abbreviated quotations as a violation of the general right of personality
In the opinion of the Regional Court, the quotes were largely statements of fact and not – as argued by the AStA – statements of opinion.
Even if the quotes were literally correct, it was still inadmissible to remove the quotes from the overall context.
This is because the lack of context distorts the meaning of the quotes and makes them misleading for the reader.
However, the reproduction of the full quotes would make it clear that the professor – contrary to the information provided by the AStA – rejects acts of violence.
The reporting of the factual allegations is therefore false and violates the professor’s general right to privacy.
Expression of opinion permitted
However, the professor’s statement advocating “right-wing extremist positions” was covered by freedom of expression.
This is because the term “right-wing radical” is an interpretation of the students and therefore an expression of opinion.
The reporting, which was exaggerated to a certain extent, was intended to draw attention to the problem of xenophobia and encourage readers to reflect.
The professor had to accept the criticism of the AStA because he had “consciously decided […] not to express himself in public in a well-balanced and reserved manner, but in a way that is predominantly perceived as provocative, even by more conservative media such as the G-Zeitung […] “.
The detailed and well-founded judgment of the Cologne Regional Court once again makes it clear that a strict distinction must be made in practice between factual claims and expressions of opinion.
Especially when it comes to the violation of general personal rights and freedom of opinion.
Nevertheless, the permissibility of certain expressions of opinion is still always based on a consideration of the individual case.