Süddeutsche loses Lindemann lawyer in court docket | EUROtoday

Get real time updates directly on you device, subscribe now.

DThe “Süddeutsche Zeitung” additionally failed within the second occasion in its try and have the lawyer Simon Bergmann legally prohibited from making statements concerning the newspaper's strategy to analysis into Metoo allegations towards his consumer Till Lindemann. The Hanseatic Higher Regional Court rejected the “Süddeutsche” software for an interim injunction (ref. 7 W 14/24).

Michael Hanfeld

accountable editor for options on-line and “media”.

In a debate on the “Legal Tribune Online” (LTO) portal and in a single level in an interview with the NZZ, Bergmann expressed the evaluation that the “Süddeutsche” and the NDR had reported on the case of the Rammstein singer Lindemann with explicit “zealousness”. . A suggestive query was requested on the Internet to seek for ladies who may need one thing incriminating to say about Lindemann; factors exonerating his shoppers weren’t taken under consideration. The lawyer for “Süddeutsche” complained that the aforementioned head of the SZ’s investigative division had not made such posts, so it was a false assertion of truth.

However, the Hamburg regional court docket discovered that there was a connecting issue for Bergmann's assertion – a publish by the journalist Daniel Drepper, who’s a part of the SZ/NDR analysis community, in any other case it was an evaluative assertion by Bergmann, i.e. an expression of opinion (ref. 324 O 563/23 ). The Hanseatic Higher Regional Court adopted this view: it was Bergmann's opinion and he didn’t use literal (false) quotations.

This determination can also be thought of incorrect, “since classifying the alleged quotes reproduced by Mr. Bergmann as an expression of opinion seems remote,” mentioned the lawyer for “Süddeutsche,” Martin Schippan, when requested by the FAZ. The determination “violates the strict protection of quotes by the Federal Court of Justice”. If quotes have been used as proof for criticism, they must be 100% appropriate. The judgment “gives freedom of speech and the qualification of very clear statements as expressions of opinion a space that Hamburg case law does not usually allow.”

“The try and have criticism of 1's personal Metoo reporting within the Lindemann case banned by the courts proves that the SZ has lengthy since deserted its function as an goal analysis medium on this case. It is to be welcomed that the writer has failed with this,” said lawyer Simon Bergmann when asked by the FAZ. According to Martin Schippan, the “Süddeutsche” in all probability doesn’t need to get entangled in the primary proceedings, that are pending after the unsuccessful functions for an interim injunction.