Public Prosecutor Confirms Fine for Calling Merz ‘Lackey
German prosecutors charged someone for calling Chancellor Merz "Lackaffe" but dismissed "Pinocchio" as political criticism, revealing disparate treatment under laws protecting politicians from insults.
The Heilbronn Public Prosecutor’s Office has provided detailed explanations for the first time regarding how it assessed insults against Chancellor Friedrich Merz posted under a police Facebook entry, according to Nius. The case has sparked debate over Germany’s controversial Section 188 of the Criminal Code, which provides enhanced protection for politicians against insults.
On October 21, 2025, the Heilbronn Police Department posted on Facebook about a visit by Chancellor Merz to the Baden-Württemberg city. The post attracted 397 comments, of which police flagged 38 as potentially insulting and forwarded them to prosecutors for review.
Of the 38 comments reported, nine were dismissed under standard prosecutorial discretion. Seven cases against unknown perpetrators were closed due to failure to identify suspects. Thirteen cases were transferred to other prosecutor’s offices based on jurisdictional rules for internet statements. Four cases resulted in formal criminal penalty orders, while one was dismissed due to the suspect’s unknown whereabouts. Three cases remain pending.
The prosecutor’s office confirmed that proceedings were initiated without any personal criminal complaint from Chancellor Merz himself. Instead, authorities determined there was a special public interest in prosecution, allowing them to proceed independently.
The divergent outcomes for similar insults have raised eyebrows. When asked to explain why “Pinocchio” was dismissed while “Lackaffe” led to criminal charges, prosecutors stated that the assigned official concluded the latter term showed no substantive connection with political activity, but rather personal defamation was in the foreground.
The legal basis for prosecution rests on Section 188 of the German Criminal Code, which was enacted on April 3, 2021. This highly controversial provision enables prosecution of insults against politicians if they are deemed capable of significantly impeding their public work.
“Pinocchio” was classified by prosecutors as permissible criticism of power, apparently viewed as commentary on truthfulness in political statements. By contrast, “Lackaffe”—defined in German dictionaries as a vain or conceited man—was deemed a pure insult to personal honor.
The assessment has drawn skepticism over whether such a commonplace colloquial expression truly qualifies as capable of substantially hampering a political figure’s public effectiveness. The term is relatively mild in German vernacular, typically mocking vanity or excessive self-presentation rather than making serious accusations.
The penalty order against the “Lackaffe” commenter imposed 30 daily fines, though it has not yet become legally binding. The individual has filed an objection and the case may proceed to trial.
Among the cases still under review are comments including “son of a bitch,” “shitty chancellor,” and abbreviated vulgar variants. Other cases resulted in penalty orders for similarly abbreviated vulgar expressions directed at the chancellor.
The differential treatment highlights ongoing tensions in German law between protecting political speech and shielding public officials from insults. Section 188 has faced sustained criticism from free speech advocates who argue it creates a two-tier system where politicians receive greater legal protection than ordinary citizens.
Critics contend the provision chills political discourse and empowers prosecutors to make subjective determinations about what constitutes legitimate political criticism versus personal insult. The Heilbronn case demonstrates how fine these distinctions can be, with fairy-tale references passing muster while animal-based colloquialisms trigger criminal proceedings.
The Heilbronn prosecutor’s office emphasized that each statement undergoes individual legal and factual review, with outcomes dependent on specific circumstances. However, the lack of clear guidelines for distinguishing protected political speech from prosecutable insults has fueled concerns about arbitrary enforcement.
With information from Nius
