decisions, applied to the evaluation of a by type. 5 Abs. 1 Set 1 GG protected utterance as harmful to minors establish adverse legal consequences, have the value-setting significance of  carry the fundamental right of freedom of expression bill. These principles are  also be observed, if not the expression itself is the subject of a method, but their evaluation in turn is the basis for a more onerous state measure. So far classification of utterances as "harmful to minors" the basis for the requirement to appoint a finable forming youth protection officer, must within the are also taken into account proportionality test, which meaning  such an obligation for the possibility of free expression of  concerned has. This has the second chamber of the First Senate of the Federal Constitutional Court with the released and today decision decided and a constitution of a complaint applicant granted.

facts:

The complainant is one of the national associations the National Democratic Party of Germany (NPD) and maintains a publicly available Facebook page, where he's texts sets policy issues and links to other texts. Between November 2014 and January 2016 created the applicant a Variety of militant contributions to refugee policy, both of users and users as well as the complainant himself with  were provided grossly disparaging comments towards refugees. Because of the contributions, the state media authority set against the Complainant a fine should be. The applicant had a must appoint youth protection officer, he jugendgefährdende Offers do businesslike accessible via telemedia.

put it on the here against opposition directed the  District Court determined, that it did not matter, whether the contributions actually had seditious content. The youth endangerment follow already from the grossly simplified representations, Slogans and comments, which are suitable, for undifferentiated rejection of entire Populations and aggressive hostility to religious contribute and ethnic minorities. Thus did the Complainant must appoint a youth protection officer; because he had failed to do so, whether the fine imposed lawfully. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as unfounded. With his Constitutional complaint alleges the complainant, inter alia, Violation of his fundamental right to freedom of expression under Article. 5 Abs. 1 GG.

Essential considerations of the chamber:

I. As far as the applicant complained, by the decisions challenged in his freedom of expression under Article. 5 Abs. 1 Set 1 to be injured GG, the constitutional complaint is permitted and justified.

Political parties are carriers of fundamental rights, in particular freedom of expression under Article. 5 Abs. 1 GG. subject of Scope are opinions, that is, by the element of Opinion and the holding embossed For comments, without it it depended on it, if they prove to be true or false, whether you founded or unfounded, are emotional or rational, as valuable or  worthless, be judged dangerous or harmless. Therefore fall offending comments not already therefore out of the scope of the kind. 5 Abs. 1 Set 1 GG, because they are directed against minorities or a hateful and racist content may be open exhibit.

II. The fundamental right of freedom of expression is not granted unconditionally. but an interference with freedom of expression requires always the special justification. So it is necessary, that decisions, applied to the evaluation of a by Article. 5 Abs. 1 Set 1 GG  protected utterance as harmful to minors adverse legal consequences, as  the requirement to appoint a youth protection officer, tie, the  value-setting significance of the fundamental right of freedom of expression consider.

Satisfy these requirements, the challenged not decisions. Required is a comprehensible explanation the individual Subsumtionsschritte among the constituent elements of the standard applied, in which the specialized courts worth reacted with the dealing importance of freedom of expression and in particular the here consider in question protection of minors. The Court however, only considered the comments board as harmful to minors, without an individual basis the conceptual meaning of the remarks in question  to determine in sustainable manner and freedom of Complainant to consider. In particular, it did not sit down in any way with the in question here Sanctions – of the Appointment of a youth protection officer – and their importance and Intervention for weight charge of utterances in social networks apart.