Can Empirical Proof Be a Defence for Calling Someone a “Moron” in Germany? The Case of Stefan Niehoff and the Limits of Free Speech, By Richard Miller (Londonistan)
In Germany, calling someone a "moron" can land you in legal trouble under the country's strict insult laws, as illustrated by the case of Stefan Niehoff, a 64-year-old retiree from Burgpreppach. Niehoff faced prosecution for retweeting a meme suggesting Green politician Robert Habeck was a moron, among other posts deemed offensive under German law. His case, detailed in a Daily Sceptic article from June 18, 2025, raises a provocative question: can empirical proof that someone is a "moron" serve as a defence against charges of insult (Beleidigung) under § 185 of the German Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch, StGB)? This blog piece explores Germany's insult laws, the Niehoff case, the feasibility of an empirical defence, and the broader implications for free speech, in a post-liberal land.
Under § 185 StGB, insulting another person is a criminal offense in Germany, punishable by a fine or up to one year in prison, with a possible two-year sentence if the insult is public or involves assault. Unlike defamation laws in common-law countries like the US, which require proof of false statements and reputational harm, German insult law focuses on expressions of disrespect or contempt, even if true. The law stems from a historical emphasis on protecting personal honor, rooted in aristocratic duelling codes and Roman law, and is part of a broader category of "crimes of honour" (Ehrdelikte) that include libel (§ 186) and defamation (§ 187).
The offense of Beleidigung does not require the statement to be false; it hinges on whether the statement violates the victim's honour and disrespect can trigger prosecution. In 2015, over 218,000 insult cases were filed, though most result in fines rather than imprisonment. The law also applies to online speech, as seen in cases like Niehoff's, where retweeting offensive content can lead to police raids and fines.
Stefan Niehoff, a retiree with a small X account, became a focal point of Germany's speech crackdown when police raided his home in late 2024 over a retweet implying Robert Habeck was a moron. The raid, led by Bamberg prosecutor Ursula Redler, sparked public outcry, dubbed a "sh**storm," and drew international attention, including a 60 Minutes segment on Germany's speech crime prosecutions. Initially, prosecutors focused on the "moron" retweet but later shifted to other posts, securing a summary judgment against Niehoff for five retweets and one reply, including images and captions invoking Nazi imagery and comparisons. At trial, two charges were dropped, but Niehoff was convicted for four posts, fined €825, and vowed to appeal.
The case highlights Germany's aggressive enforcement of speech laws, particularly against politically charged content. The dropped "moron" charge suggests prosecutors may have doubted its prosecutability, possibly due to its status as a value judgment rather than a verifiable fact, or due to public backlash. However, the focus on Nazi-related retweets under § 86a StGB, which prohibits disseminating Nazi propaganda, underscores the broader scope of Germany's speech restrictions.
The question of whether empirical proof that someone is a "moron" could serve as a defence hinge on the legal distinction between factual assertions and value judgments under German law. A "moron" is a derogatory term implying low intelligence, but it is typically considered a value judgment, subjective and unprovable, rather than a factual claim. German courts prioritise the protection of personal honour over the truth of the statement, meaning that even a true insult can be punishable.
Legal Analysis
Factual Assertions vs. Value Judgments: Under German defamation law, factual assertions must be provably false to be actionable, with the burden of proof on the plaintiff. However, insults like "moron" are treated as value judgments, which are beyond empirical proof. Courts assess whether such statements express disrespect, not their truth. For example, in a 2011 case, a Berlin court awarded €8,190 for social media insults, regardless of their veracity. Thus, presenting "empirical proof" (e.g., IQ tests or behavioural evidence) that Habeck lacks intelligence would likely be irrelevant, as the offense lies in the disrespect, not the factuality.
Freedom of Expression: The German Constitution (Article 5) protects freedom of expression, but this is balanced against personal honour (Article 1). Courts weigh these rights case-by-case, often favouring honour in insult cases unless the statement contributes to public discourse. In Niehoff's case, the "moron" retweet was likely seen as a personal attack rather than a substantive critique of Habeck's policies, weakening any free speech defence. The Federal Constitutional Court has ruled that only statements amounting to "abusive criticism" (Schmähkritik) or attacks on human dignity are automatically criminal, but less severe insults still require a balancing test.
Empirical Proof in Practice: Even if Niehoff presented data (e.g., policy failures or public statements) to argue Habeck's incompetence, courts would likely dismiss it as irrelevant. German law does not recognize a "truth defence" for insults as it does for defamation, where proving the truth of a factual claim can negate liability. For instance, in a 2019 case involving Renate Künast, the court rejected some claims because the comments were deemed "objective contributions to debate," but others were classified as insults despite their context. Niehoff's "moron" retweet, lacking a clear policy critique, would not qualify for such protection.
Practical Challenges: Proving someone is a "moron" empirically is fraught with issues. Intelligence is complex, and no universally accepted metric (e.g., IQ) definitively labels someone as intellectually deficient. Moreover, submitting such evidence could be seen as further disrespect, potentially worsening the offense. The subjective nature of "moron" makes it a poor candidate for empirical defense, unlike specific factual claims (e.g., alleging corruption with evidence).
Hypothetical Defence
If Niehoff's defence team argued that Habeck's actions demonstrably showed low intelligence, they would need to frame it as a protected opinion contributing to public debate. For example, citing specific policy decisions (e.g., Germany's energy policy failures) could elevate the statement to a critique of public interest. However, the court's focus on the Nazi-related retweets suggests that the "moron" charge was secondary, and any empirical defence would likely be overshadowed by the stricter § 86a violations, where intent or irony is irrelevant if the rejection of Nazi ideology is not immediately clear.
Niehoff's case reflects Germany's unique approach to speech regulation, driven by its historical sensitivity to hate speech and extremism post-Nazi era. Critics, including Nadine Strossen, argue that such laws chill free expression and may backfire by amplifying extremist voices through martyrdom. The Pimmelgate case, where a tweet calling a politician a "d**k" led to a police raid, illustrates the law's broad discretion and potential for abuse. Social media posts on X highlight public frustration, with users like @eugyppius1 noting the harsh standard for Nazi-related content, but these are inconclusive without broader evidence.
In contrast, US law under the First Amendment protects insults unless they incite imminent lawless action or constitute a true threat. Calling a politician a "moron" in the US would rarely face criminal prosecution, highlighting the stark difference in legal cultures. Germany's laws, while aimed at protecting dignity, risk stifling dissent, especially when applied to political figures like Habeck. The Niehoff case, with its focus on retweets rather than original content, also raises questions about platform liability and the chilling effect on online speech.
Comparison to Other Cases
Böhmermann Case (2016): Comedian Jan Böhmermann faced prosecution for an "insult poem" against Turkish President Erdoğan. The case was dropped, but it showed the law's reach to foreign heads of state under the now-repealed Majestätsbeleidigung law.
Künast Case (2021): Green politician Renate Künast successfully sued for user data after sexist insults on Facebook, but some comments were deemed protected speech, showing the nuanced balance courts strike.
Grote Case (2021): A tweet calling politician Andy Grote a "pimmel" (d**k) led to a police raid, sparking the Pimmelgate controversy and criticism of overreach.
These cases suggest that while empirical proof is irrelevant for insults, framing a statement as political critique can sometimes mitigate liability, though success is rare.
In conclusion, in Germany calling someone a "moron" is a criminal offence under § 185 StGB, and empirical proof that the person is intellectually deficient is not a viable defence. The law prioritises personal honor over truth, treating "moron" as a value judgment rather than a factual claim. Stefan Niehoff's case, while initially centered on a "moron" retweet, shifted to Nazi-related content, where stricter laws apply. Even if Niehoff had pursued an empirical defence, it would likely have failed due to the subjective nature of the insult and the court's focus on disrespect. The case underscores Germany's stringent speech laws, which contrast sharply with freer systems like the US, raising concerns about their impact on political discourse and online expression. As Niehoff appeals, the debate over balancing honour and free speech in Germany continues to intensify.
"Maybe you remember Stefan Niehoff.
He's the 64 year-old retiree from Burgpreppach in Lower Franconia who runs a small X account, from which he rains retweet upon merciless retweet down upon the Federal Republic of Germany. He is probably the most dangerous retweeter in the entire nation.
Niehoff became famous in late 2024, when police raided his house because he'd retweeted a very dangerous meme suggesting that then-Economics Minister Robert Habeck of the Greens might be a moron.
The lead Bamberg prosecutor who oversaw the investigation into Niehoff's activity turned out to be a pinched woman named Ursula Redler.
Redler told the Main Post last February that "I've always wanted to fight for good, like a Jedi knight", which makes her absolutely the kind of person you want at the top of your criminal justice system. You just know that if retweeting were a thing in the Star Wars universe, Jedi knights would be against it.
Anyway, because the Federal Republic lacks visionaries of Redler's calibre, news of the raid on Niehoff's residence set off what is known in Germany as a shitstorm. Some suggested that police raids over the crime of merely retweeting an image might be excessive, while others realised that Niehoff's prosecution was entirely typical and that dozens and dozens of people every week are similarly indicted for tweeting and retweeting highly dangerous statements. The American television programme 60 Minutes even ran a brief documentary on speech crime prosecutions in the Federal Republic, and that also went over poorly for reasons nobody can fathom.
The first thing our brave Jedi knight prosecutors did in the midst of this shitstorm was shut the f**k up and wait quietly to proceed with their case until after the elections. The second thing they did – and I really don't understand this part – is forget all about Niehoff's 'moron' retweet. It's like they decided their chances of winning that case weren't all that great. Perhaps it is only the prosecutors, and not the judges, who are Jedi knights in Bamberg. However that may be, they went back to the drawing board and undertook a proper investigation of Niehoff's quite dangerous X account, all to find some properly prosecutable retweets they could really nail him on. Some of you may think that sounds like retaliation for the crime of humiliating the prosecutors before the entire country, but that just shows what little you know about how Jedi knights work.
Finally, last month, prosecutors applied for and won summary judgment against Niehoff for his Twitter activity. Because Niehoff is a very evil and subversive man who has brought my country basically to its knees via the retweet function on X dot com, he naturally refused to pay the fine and opted for a full trial instead. Today that trial happened before a judge named Patrick Keller, under very strict information security measures. The District Court laid a highly unusual blanket prohibition on all interviews and filming in the entire building while Niehoff's trial unfolded. They even specified that "interview-like conversations" were forbidden. You can't just have ordinary conversations around retweeters.
The court could not, however, entirely exclude journalists from the trial, which means that we finally learned the specifics of Niehoff's indictment. The man stood accused of five very dangerous Nazi retweets and one very dangerous Nazi reply:
§He answered an unspecified post on X with a picture of Adolf Hitler and the question "Is this the one?"
§He retweeted an old photograph of clerics offering a Nazi salute with a caption implying that present-day ecclesiastical condemnations of Alternative für Deutschland represent a related tendency.
§He retweeted an image of Hitler shaking some cleric's hand, apparently to make the same point.
§He retweeted a meme in which the Green politician Katharina Schulze offers a Nazi salute above a caption referring to "the Green Reich".
§He retweeted a 'then/now' meme, with somebody in an SA uniform under the "then" caption and an Antifa rioter under the "now" caption.
§He retweeted a meme that indirectly compared Third Reich-era attitudes towards Jews with pandemic-era attitudes towards the unvaccinated.
Mysteriously, the judge and the prosecutors agreed to drop the final two retweets from the indictment. In an ideal world they would both be investigated for National Socialist sympathies over this, because honestly I don't know what else their permissive attitude could betoken. After a few hours the court found Niehoff guilty for his Hitler reply and his other three Hitler retweets, and slapped him with a fine of €825. "Interview-like conversations" were then permitted to resume in the courthouse.
Niehoff has promised to appeal the conviction."
Comments