Anabel Schunke, an influencer and journalist, has been acquitted by the Braunschweig Regional Court on March 19, 2025, overturning her previous conviction by the Goslar District Court for incitement to hatred. The case has sparked significant debate about the boundaries of free speech in Germany, particularly concerning comments made about the Sinti and Roma communities.
The controversy began in April 2022, when Schunke posted on X (formerly Twitter), criticizing what she described as the behavior of a "large part" of Sinti and Roma people in Germany and other countries. In her post, she accused these groups of engaging in social fraud, avoiding educational obligations for their children, and perpetuating a cycle of disconnection from society.
Specifically, Schunke's post stated: "A large part of the Sinti and Roma in Germany and other countries excludes themselves from civilized society by defrauding the social state and thus the taxpayer, not adhering to compulsory schooling for their children, staying among themselves, stealing, throwing garbage on the street, and moving from apartment to apartment as rent nomads. Those who name this will be accused by their own interior minister of the newly invented 'antiziganism.' Just like any other criticism of a decades-long misguided immigration policy, this should also be suffocated under accusations of racism." This bold statement prompted the Central Office for Combating Hate Crime on the Internet (ZHIN) to initiate proceedings against Schunke in September 2022.
Initially, the Goslar District Court rejected the request for a penalty order against her. The judge argued that Schunke's criticism constituted permissible free speech rather than incitement to hatred, noting that the full context of her statement included criticism of the interior minister’s approach to immigration policy. However, the Göttingen Public Prosecutor's Office challenged this ruling, leading to an unexpected reversal by the same judge, who imposed a fine of 3,600 euros. Following complaints regarding the insufficient penalty, Schunke was later sentenced to 5,400 euros.
The case drew considerable attention, not only for its legal implications but also for its commentary on free expression in Germany. The Göttingen Public Prosecutor's Office maintained that as a journalist, Schunke’s platform provided her statements with a particular resonance, potentially influencing public opinion adversely. A spokesperson for the office stated, "The accused is a journalist and thus enjoys a special level of credibility among the population. If she can publish such content without severe consequences, it could have a negative modeling effect."
Despite the district court's ruling, the Braunschweig Regional Court ultimately stated that Schunke's words did not amount to a violation of human dignity or constitute incitement to hatred under section 130 of the German Penal Code. A spokesperson for the court shared that the remarks were restrained when considered in the context of freedom of expression, and the court did not identify any direct attack on human dignity within her comments.
This case carries broader implications, especially when viewed against the backdrop of increasing discussions about hate speech and freedom of expression protections in Germany. The Central Office for Combating Hate Crime is already well-known for its rigorous pursuit of internet hate crimes, processing approximately 3,500 cases annually. Their recent exposure through a report by CBS's "60 Minutes" brought international scrutiny to Germany’s handling of free speech versus hate speech. Schunke’s situation has emerged amid criticisms about how government actions are perceived as diminishing the scope of acceptable public discourse.
As a conclusion, Schunke declared on her social media following the ruling, "This was an important victory for freedom of expression. We must contest such proceedings whenever we can." Her lawyer, Christoph Schmischke of the Cologne law firm Höcker, echoed this sentiment, labeling the ruling as "an enormously important success" for press freedom, while also acknowledging that "the intimidation effect on journalists remains." The precedent set by this case highlights the delicate balance between safeguarding societal values and allowing freedom of expression to flourish, prompting further scrutiny and discussions among policymakers and the public alike.
