DR. SARAFI lawyers successfully defend satirical portrayal of a well-known streamer — discontinuation of criminal proceedings for alleged use of anti-constitutional features

DR. SARAFI lawyers were able to obtain the termination of an investigation before the Göttingen public prosecutor's office in accordance with Section 170 (2) StPO. Our client, a nationally known streamer, was accused of using anti-constitutional license plates within the meaning of Section 86a StGB in a satirical YouTube video. After a comprehensive review of our legal assessment, the public prosecutor's office followed suit and discontinued the proceedings.

The reason for the investigation

The starting point of the process was a video in which our client satirically discussed the much-criticized Disney remake of the classic “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.” The remake was already the subject of intensive social debate in advance, as Disney realigned the content of central narrative elements, role models and basic film decisions. In particular, the following were criticized:

• the replacement of classic narrative motifs with political messages,
• the massive deviation from the 1937,
• unfortunate Disney communication strategies around production,
• as well as controversial public statements by leading actress Rachel Zegler.

Criticism of the remake moved far beyond aesthetic issues and became a general debate about identity politics, cultural narrative traditions, and artistic freedom. Our client took up this debate satirically.

Satire as a stylistic device — and as context

The very beginning of the video, a humorous meme from “Family Guy,” shows the satirical character of the entire production. It exaggerates the communicative dilemma that occurs when all social positions are to be taken into account linguistically at the same time. It is therefore clear from the outset that this is socio-critical satire, not political propaganda.

In the further course, our client sorted out the various points of criticism of Disney's approach, humorously analyzed the Group's wrong decisions and expressly distanced himself from right-wing positions. It is particularly noteworthy that he prominently emphasizes not to criticize the cast of Snow White with a non-white actress. Acting performance, not skin color, is decisive.

The point of contention: satirical escalation versus criminal law relevance

During the investigation, several satirical overlays from the rest of the video were criticized, in particular a sequence related to the film “Barbie.” There, our client placed the much-criticized political messages of this film in an exaggerated satirical relation to the omnipresent greeting “Hi Barbie.” In this escalation, four short film quotes were shown, in which the National Socialist greeting “Heil Hitler” can be heard from historical recordings.

However, the presentation was not aimed at glorifying, relativizing or propagating National Socialist ideology. Rather, the dramaturgical overpresence of a political motive was satirically exaggerated by contrasting it with the extreme example of historical propaganda mechanisms. The satirical detachment was clearly visible due to the overall context.

About the ad — and its political motivation

The criminal complaint was filed by a far-left group, which had already given rise to criminal investigations several times in the past. It was noticeable that the same people had filed a large number of advertisements without any comprehensible connection, apparently in an attempt to publicly discredit unpopular political opponents.

Legal assessment: freedom of art, freedom of opinion and § 86a StGB

The allegation of using anti-constitutional symbols presupposes actual use within the meaning of Section 86a (1) StGB. Section 86 (4) StGB, which via Section 86a (3) StGB also applies within the framework of Section 86a, is also applicable within the framework of Section 86a. This is not just a reason for justification, but an exclusion of facts.

This applies in particular to:

• art,
• science,
• teaching,
• reporting on current events,
• and specifically when faced with a critical discussion.

The decisive factor is whether the action serves the purpose set out in paragraph 4. This must be determined both objectively and subjectively. The limits are clearly marked in supreme court case law: A mere “mouthpiece function” or advertising for anti-constitutional content is not included, but critical-satirical discussion certainly does.

The Federal Constitutional Court defines art as free creative design in which impressions and experiences are condensed into a specific form of expression. This was exactly the case here: The satirical overstatement served to critique the political overload of a contemporary film and had no ideological connection to National Socialism.

Outcome: Proceedings discontinued under section 170(2) StPO

The Göttingen public prosecutor's office followed our legal assessment in full and discontinued the proceedings due to lack of evidence. Neither objectively nor subjectively were the conditions for criminal liability under Section 86a StGB. The video was protected as a satirical-artistic discussion — both by Section 86 Paragraph 4 StGB and by Article 5 Paragraph 1 and Paragraph 3 GG.

conclusion

The case impressively shows how important it is to classify allegations under Section 86a StGB under art and opinion law. Satire can exaggerate, provoke and test limits. Especially in an open society, political and cultural productions must be able to be critically accompanied — including through humorous exaggeration. The hasty equating of any use of historical NS symbols with punishable propaganda does not do justice to the differentiated legal situation.

The termination of the proceedings confirms that our client has acted within the framework of artistic freedom. His satirical work is not relevant under criminal law.

For inquiries:
DR. SARAFI Rechtsanwälte
info@sarafi.de