Anyone who relies on the judiciary’s sense of proportion is left alone. Hitler wore a swastika? Criminal proceedings! We need a clearing out of speech crimes. Otherwise, citizens will lose faith in the rule of law.
So now it has the publicist Rainer Zitelmann caught. He also received a notification from the police’s state security department, as he wrote to me at the weekend. He also now faces up to three years in prison.
What is it in his case? He used a photomontage in which Adolf Hitler can be seen on the left and above it the quote “Give me Czechoslovakia and I will not attack anyone else!” – and on the right, Vladimir Putin with the almost identical sentence “Give me Ukraine and I won’t attack anyone else!”.
Who would have thought that the Führer wore a swastika?
“Well,” I asked on the phone, “what are you being accused of: trivializing the Third Reich?” You have to be prepared for anything in the German justice system these days. It is possible that the comparison between Adolf Hitler and the Russian President is inadmissible because Putin is considered a proper politician in Berlin judicial circles – who knows?
“Use of symbols of unconstitutional organizations,” replied Zitelmann. He overlooked the fact that Adolf Hitler was wearing a swastika on his sleeve in the photo he posted. Well, who would have thought – the Führer wore a swastika? Of course that doesn’t work at all. The state has to intervene.
We have reached the level of Gaga justice. I don’t think there’s any other way to describe what’s happening right now.
Rainer Zitelmann’s case is even more grotesque. If you’re already getting into trouble for posting a historical picture, then Poland is open, as they say. Then the lesson is: It’s best not to mention that the Third Reich even existed. Then you won’t get into any trouble.
,regionOfInterest=(336,329)&hash=069bec50a77f2abac4c96088884c5f37526d54e6aff8e308e4415cc7c48f0194)
Persecution sacralizes National Socialism
The chairman of PEN Berlin, Deniz Yücel, has pointed out that such prosecutions amount to a subsequent sacralization of National Socialism. Motto: Don’t joke about the leader. Do the police officers and prosecutors involved realize what they are doing? Even today, many students no longer know what happened in 1933. If you ask them about Auschwitz, half of the 14 to 16 year olds will be met with uncomprehending eyes.
At some point the Nazis completely disappeared from memory. This is the consequence of removing every image from circulation because its distribution amounts to the use of forbidden slogans or insignia. Then the children will say: “That’s not true, Dad, you must have heard it wrong. There’s nothing about it on Insta and TikTok.”
Whoever holds the hammer in his hand only sees nails. The “Zeit” recently compiled a report that the cases for so-called speech offenses have almost exploded. Never before have so many people been brought to justice for sedition or using banned slogans as in the past two years.
,regionOfInterest=(1340,758)&hash=abf7806a5901d921bdd65633c97da106f25efff6200e3808c23d1e91c8fe2d3a)
The first step into misfortune
The good news is that once the procedures reach the higher authorities, they usually do not last. At the latest in the higher regional courts there are people with clear minds who put the investigative furor in its place. The Federal Constitutional Court’s case law on freedom of expression has also been pleasingly consistent over the years. In the case of ambiguous statements, the interpretation from Karlsruhe should always be chosen that is most favorable for the defendant.
But you have to get that far first. Zitelmann has already accumulated a few thousand euros in legal fees, and there isn’t even a public prosecutor involved in the matter. Of course, the historian could have responded to the police’s accused form without consulting a lawyer. But experience shows that this is not advisable. Relying on the investigative bodies’ ability to understand is the first step to disaster.
The paragraph blunder hits indiscriminately
It is tempting to suspect a political bias in the selection of procedures. When Twitter king Ruprecht Polenz posted “Germany awake” in June 2023 because he thought it was a successful conclusion to a comment, it had no further consequences for him. The public prosecutor’s office declared that he was not interested in criminal prosecution and immediately stopped the case.
He was probably just lucky. I think things have long since passed the point where one bothers to check the political leanings of the alleged perpetrator. Paragraphs are simply slapped on everything indiscriminately that turns out to be a suspicious statement left and right.
People are losing faith in the rule of law
I rarely make appeals to politicians. I don’t think it’s the job of journalists to give advice to politicians. But in this case I have to deviate from the golden rule. My impression is that you have to do something in Berlin. Otherwise people will lose faith in the rule of law. Anyone who relies on the judiciary’s sense of proportion is, as you can see, abandoned.
It would be urgent to clear out all speech crimes. Most penal norms come from a time when people still had to worry about the old Nazis rallying together to take over the reins again. That is why there are a number of paragraphs in the criminal code that actually have no place in a free society – and which, to make matters worse, are worded so vaguely that one can understand anything and nothing by them. Where does sedition begin and where does it end? Nobody can say for sure.
These proceedings threaten the Republic
You can leave the clarification to the courts. But this is a costly and frightening path for citizens. Not everyone is as hardened as I am. Many people fall to their knees when they receive a request in the mailbox to immediately respond to the criminal proceedings opened against them.
Also the publicist Norbert Bolz In the end he accepted a fine because his wife could no longer sleep due to fear. He had done nothing, absolutely nothing, except for an ironic remark using the outlawed “De” slogan.
As a politician, you can of course accept that the citizen’s money will be really frightened. Let him just be careful, the idiot! But that would be a different state than the one that is sung about on celebrations for the Basic Law. I don’t know what the best way to call the new republic would be – perhaps “managed democracy”? In any case, it would no longer be the Federal Republic as we know it.





