National Review Writer Says German Prosecutors Investigated Him Over Online Speech

A National Review writer says he became a target of German prosecutors over comments he made online, adding his name to a growing list of people investigated under Germany's strict speech laws.

The specific details of the writer's case, published by National Review, describe German authorities pursuing legal action over speech that would be flatly protected under the First Amendment in the United States. The account fits a pattern German prosecutors have followed for years: opening criminal investigations into citizens and foreigners alike for posts, comments, or statements deemed insulting, defamatory, or hateful under German law.

How Germany's Speech Laws Work

Germany criminalizes "insult" under Section 185 of its criminal code and bans "incitement to hatred" under Section 130. Unlike the U.S., where the First Amendment protects even offensive or hateful speech short of direct incitement to imminent violence, German law allows prosecution for insults directed at individuals, including public figures and politicians.

German police have run coordinated nationwide raids in past years targeting people accused of posting insults against politicians online, seizing phones and computers over social media posts. These operations, sometimes called "days of action" by German police coordinating with the Federal Criminal Police Office, have swept up ordinary citizens for comments made on platforms like X and Facebook.

The Free Speech Argument

The case laid out in National Review reflects a concern that's been raised repeatedly by American conservatives and civil libertarians alike: that Germany's legal framework criminalizes core political speech that would be untouchable in the U.S.

Defenders of Germany's system argue the laws exist because of the country's specific history with Nazism and are aimed narrowly at hate speech and harassment, not legitimate political debate. German officials have said the laws protect the dignity of individuals and target genuine threats, not disagreement or criticism of policy.

Germany's postwar constitution, the Grundgesetz, was explicitly built to prevent a repeat of the conditions that allowed Nazi propaganda to spread unchecked, and German courts have upheld the insult and incitement laws as consistent with that constitutional order for decades.

But critics, including the writer's account in National Review, argue the laws have expanded well beyond narrow anti-Nazi purposes and are now used to chill ordinary political speech, including criticism of government officials and immigration policy. Once a law criminalizes "insulting" a politician, the standard for what counts as an insult becomes highly subjective and prosecutorial discretion becomes enormous.

The core problem with these systems is that they hand the state broad, subjective power to decide which words cross a line, and that line moves depending on who holds power. A German prosecutor deciding a Facebook comment is criminal "insult" is not obviously different in principle from any government deciding which political opinions are punishable, even if German officials insist the intent is narrower.

No Formal Charges Detailed, But Investigation Itself Is the Point

The National Review piece does not indicate the writer faced a conviction. Whether an investigation resulted in charges is not specified in the available account. But in Germany, simply becoming the subject of a criminal probe over speech, even without conviction, carries real costs. Phones get seized. Legal fees pile up. People self-censor rather than risk becoming the next target.

That's a meaningfully different legal reality than the United States, where the government generally cannot open a criminal investigation over a person's political opinions absent a specific threat or incitement to imminent lawless action, under the standard set by the Supreme Court in Brandenburg v. Ohio.

What's Unresolved

The National Review account does not specify whether the case has concluded, whether charges were formally filed, or what specific comments triggered German authorities' attention. Those details matter for judging how broadly German prosecutors are interpreting their own laws in this instance.

This isn't an isolated complaint. German police and prosecutors have run high-profile speech enforcement campaigns for years, and American commentators across the political spectrum have flagged concerns about the scope of those laws when applied to political dissent, immigration criticism, or commentary that would be unremarkable under U.S. free speech norms. Whether Germany's courts or lawmakers revisit the scope of Sections 185 and 130 remains an open question, and one likely to keep generating friction as Americans increasingly find themselves ensnared by a legal system built on very different free speech assumptions than their own.