MÜHLDORF – A 56-year-old man has been convicted of sedition and fined for comparing government measures related to energy transition with the persecution of jews during the Holocaust in a Facebook post. The Mühldorf district court heard that the man’s comments were deemed to trivialize the Holocaust and incite hatred.

Prosecutor Mathias Schramm stated that the man “deliberately and intentionally stimulated the readers of an hostile attitude towards the members of the Bündnis 90/The Greens party.” The prosecutor emphasized that “the politics of the party stands in no connection with the persecution of Jews In the Third Reich.”

The Facebook post compared government measures as part of the energy transition to actions against Jews during the Nazi era,which culminated in the genocide of 6 million Jews. The prosecutor argued that spreading such comments could “incorporate the psychological climate and those addressees that are not satisfied with Greens policy to emotionally emotionalize and increase the risk of physical attacks on politicians”.

The Holocaust Downplayed

Defense lawyer Axel Reiter argued that his client did not intend to incite hatred or persecution against politicians from the Greens party. “That is far from him,” the lawyer stated. “He wrote the comment, that is undisputed. But that happened from his personal rejection and his displeasure about this policy.”

“It was not a spensive and no call to violence.”

police Searched the Man’s House

the Federal Criminal Police Office alerted local authorities to the social media post. A criminal officer testified that the author’s telephone number was obtained through an inventory data query. After the man failed to respond to a summons, a search warrant was issued. The search revealed no Nazi devotionals in the house or othre indications of right-wing extremist views.The individual cooperated with the search.

Freedom of Expression is Not Limitless

Judge Warga questioned the defendant about his reaction to the police search. “After that I deleted the post,” the defendant said. “I saw myself sitting on the street. There was still an open fine to pay and then the heating law.in this mood I made the comment with Bild online. Not out of hate,but to stimulate thought.” Judge Warga responded, “To express his displeasure is okay, but a Holocaust comparison? Freedom of expression is not limitless!”

Truck with the Heating Law After Life

Prosecutor Schramm argued that the accusation of sedition was justified, stating that the defendant stirred up hatred by equating the Greens with Nazis and suggesting the party would “trace the people with the heating law after life.” He proposed a punishment of 150 daily rates of 20 euros.

Defense lawyer Reiter reiterated that his client rejected Nazi ideology but admitted he went too far with his choice of words on Facebook.”It was not a spensive and no call to violence,” Reiter insisted. He argued that the elements of the offense were not met, though he acknowledged that an acquittal was unlikely. He attributed his client’s actions to shock and despair over the heating law.

The defense requested a fine, but noted that the client’s financial situation made a prison sentence of four months with a two-year probation period preferable.

A Fine for the Culprit

Ultimately, judge Warga found the 56-year-old owe to sedition and imposed a fine of 130 daily rates of 15 euros, along with the costs of the legal proceedings. The judge acknowledged the defendant’s confession and noted that he believed the post would not be punishable. “But swaps,it was.”

Financially Seen Before Nothing

The judge considered the defendant’s prior criminal record, but noted that he had not previously been relevant and had deleted the Facebook post himself. The judge concluded that the defendant’s actions were not motivated by malice, but by feeling affected by the Greens’ politics.He felt that the ground was being pulled out from under him and that he was facing financial ruin.

Regarding the defendant’s request for probation instead of a fine, Judge Warga explained, “A probation is not milder. If it is indeed revoked,punishment must be served 1: 1.” The judgment is final.