Palma de Mallorca/Berlin. Fuelled by a public mudslinging row between a high-profile couple, a debate has erupted in Germany over real-name requirements and new online restrictions. The allegation of identity fraud, including the distribution of sexually explicit deepfake images, comes as if on cue for policymakers. The intention is to use the case as a backdrop to force through new legislation that would effectively eliminate anonymity online.
Even before any decision has been taken on whether charges will be brought, solidarity demonstrations have been organised. Media outlets are reporting extensively on allegations that remain unproven. The justice minister has produced a draft bill, and men are broadly portrayed as potential perpetrators of sexual violence. The sequence of events carries the air of a coordinated campaign.
The dispute at the centre of the campaign stems from television presenter, actress and author Collien Fernandes, who has filed a complaint in Mallorca against her former husband, Christian Ulmen. She accuses him of identity theft, public insult and bodily harm. According to the allegations, he is said to have spent years using fake accounts to circulate AI-generated pornographic material that appeared to depict Fernandes. He rejects the accusations.
Yet much of the public discourse has already pronounced the presenter and actor guilty, with a media-driven tribunal of opinion declaring open season. The private broadcaster ProSieben has removed his programmes from its media library, while co-shareholders in his production company are calling for his departure. As both figures are little known internationally, the dispute is largely confined to Germany. For domestic politics, however, the headlines come at a convenient moment.
Arriving on cue
Soon after Fernandes made her allegations public, Justice Minister Stefanie Hubig presented a corresponding legislative proposal. Pornographic deepfakes are to become more comprehensively punishable, while platform operators are to be held more accountable. The latter point is particularly striking. Once again, the focus turns to identifying users. The allegations serve primarily as a convenient pretext – one that is being exploited with notable efficiency.
In parallel with the legislative initiative, a ten-point plan signed by 250 ‘prominent’ women from politics and culture was swiftly unveiled, calling for comprehensive protection against male violence. Its initiators include a human rights activist, a politician and former leader of the Green Party and a feminist author. The list of signatories reads like a who’s who of left-leaning politicians and predominantly feminist activists. A demonstration in Berlin, attended by several thousand people, was also organised within a short space of time.
The speed of the response is striking, not least because the dispute itself does not concern Germany directly. The criminal complaint was filed in Spain, where any investigation and potential trial would take place. Even under current German law, however, the offences alleged could carry a prison sentence of several years if prosecuted domestically. Criminal lawyer Udo Vetter has analysed the case in a post on X, pointing to at least three provisions in German criminal law under which a perpetrator could face up to five years in prison. The legal gap invoked by activists and politicians in unison therefore appears not to exist.
Surveillance at the core
The underlying objective becomes clearer when one reads both the draft legislation and the ten-point plan. Once again, the focus is on expanding online surveillance. In many respects, the demands overlap: faster removal of content, rights to obtain information from platforms and the identification of offenders. While this may sound reasonable at first glance, the measures ultimately point towards greater transparency of internet users.
Although the alleged perpetrator in the present case is already clearly identified, the proposals would once again require that every user online be identifiable at any time. The aim is another building block in the gradual expansion of comprehensive surveillance, introduced under the guise of a legitimate concern, namely the protection of women from all forms of sexualised violence.
Even if one grants the authors of the ten-point plan the sincerity of their intentions, a lingering unease remains. In the present situation, they appear strikingly useful, as they arrive as if on cue to serve as willing allies in the introduction of further online restrictions.