Section 43a of the Federal Lawyers’ Act says that a lawyer may not behave unsachlich, without regard to the matter, in practicing the profession. The law names two examples in particular. One is the deliberate spreading of untruths. The other is disparaging remarks for which the other parties or the course of the proceedings gave no cause.
The rule does not forbid sharp argument. It forbids attacks that the case itself does not justify.
The German Research Foundation’s code of good scientific practice sets out who may be named as an author. An author is someone who made “einen genuinen, nachvollziehbaren Beitrag,” a genuine contribution that others can trace, to the content of the work.
The explanations add a sentence aimed at the top of the hierarchy. “Eine Leitungs- oder Vorgesetztenfunktion begründet für sich allein keine Mitautorschaft.” A leading or supervisory position does not by itself justify co-authorship. Honorary authorship, where no such contribution was made, is not permitted.
Section 74 of the Works Constitution Act sets out how the employer and the works council work together. They should meet at least once a month. On disputed questions they must negotiate “mit dem ernsten Willen zur Einigung,” with the serious will to reach agreement. Both sides must also make proposals for settling their differences.
Before the federal election of 2017, the editors of Zeit Online created Deutschland spricht, Germany Talks. Participants answer political questions with yes or no. A program then pairs people who live close to each other and whose answers are as different as possible. The pairs meet in person to argue.
On a Sunday in June 2017, 1,200 people met in pairs to argue. In September 2018 there were 8,000. The jury of the Grimme Online Award said the project fostered respect between political opponents and served democracy “im besten Sinne,” in the best sense.
On 6 January 1912, Alfred Wegener presented his first ideas about continental drift in public. His main work, Die Entstehung der Kontinente und Ozeane, appeared in 1915. The criticism from the profession was mostly devastating. Critics objected again and again that he could not explain what caused the drift.
In 1924 Harold Jeffreys showed that the forces Wegener proposed were far too weak. Research on the ocean floor in the 1950s and 1960s led to plate tectonics, which has been generally accepted since the 1970s.
Wegener was right about the continents. He could not show how they moved, and for decades that was what counted.
In 1714 Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz wrote the Monadology, in French. Section 32 states the principle of sufficient reason. No fact can be true or existing without a sufficient reason why it is so and not otherwise.
In German it became der Satz vom zureichenden Grund. German philosophy kept returning to it. Arthur Schopenhauer wrote his doctoral thesis on it in 1813, Über die vierfache Wurzel des Satzes vom zureichenden Grunde. Martin Heidegger wrote Der Satz vom Grund.
The president of the Bundestag can call a speaker back to the subject. This is the Sachruf. A speaker called back to the subject three times in one speech can lose the floor. The president can also call a member to order by name when the member violates the order or the dignity of the house. This is the Ordnungsruf.
Three calls to order within three sitting weeks bring a fine of 2,000 euros, and 4,000 euros in a repeat case. In November 2025 the Bundestag rejected objections by AfD members to calls to order they had received. Vice President Andrea Lindholz explained the line. Members may “hart in der Sache diskutieren,” argue hard on the substance. They may not give up decency and a dignified manner toward one another.
German constitutional law protects sharp criticism. It does not protect Schmähkritik, abusive criticism. The Federal Constitutional Court defines this narrowly. A statement is abusive criticism only when “nicht mehr die Auseinandersetzung in der Sache, sondern die Diffamierung der Person im Vordergrund steht.” The debate about the matter is no longer in the foreground, and the defamation of the person is.
Even exaggerated and abusive criticism is not Schmähkritik for that reason alone. In August 2020 the court overturned the conviction of a man in preventive detention. During a dispute over late pocket money, he had called a social worker at the prison a Trulla, a disparaging word for a woman.
On 31 March 2016, the satirist Jan Böhmermann read a poem about the Turkish president on his ZDFneo show Neo Magazin Royale. He introduced it as an example of what is not allowed in Germany. “Ich habe ein Gedicht, das heißt ‚Schmähkritik’.” I have a poem, and it is called abusive criticism. Prosecutors in Mainz closed the criminal investigation in October 2016.
In the civil case, the courts in Hamburg banned the defamatory lines. On appeal, 18 of the 24 lines stayed banned. In January 2022 the Federal Constitutional Court declined to hear Böhmermann’s complaint. Long before that, in June 2017, the Bundestag had voted unanimously to abolish Section 103 of the Criminal Code. It was the offense of insulting the organs and representatives of foreign states.
On 9 February 2010, the Federal Constitutional Court ruled that the basic welfare rates known as Hartz IV were incompatible with the constitution. Much of its reasoning concerned how the amounts had been reached. The legislature must set the benefit “nachvollziehbar auf der Grundlage verlässlicher Zahlen und schlüssiger Berechnungsverfahren.” That means in a way others can follow, on the basis of reliable figures and consistent methods of calculation.
The rate for children had been set as a fixed reduction from the adult rate. According to the court, it rested on “einer freihändigen Setzung ohne empirische und methodische Fundierung,” a figure set freehand, without an empirical or methodical basis. Estimates made “ins Blaue hinein,” at random, are not a realistic calculation. The legislature had until 31 December 2010 to pass new rules.