Calls for Reform Grow
Merz himself has shown openness to a discussion about Section 188. He draws the line where, in his view, the attack is no longer only on a person but on an office of state. “The moment state offices are damaged, that is where the fun stops for me”, the chancellor said. He left open where exactly that line should run.
Saxony’s justice minister, Constanze Geiert of the CDU, goes further. She wants to abolish the criminal offense of insulting politicians. Special protection for politicians under criminal law is not necessary, she argues. The section has not effectively prevented attacks on officeholders and elected representatives, and it feeds the concern that political polemic could too quickly become a matter for criminal prosecution.
The Free Democratic Party (FDP) was also blunt. Wolfgang Kubicki and Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann spoke out against the section. The Alternative for Germany (AfD) is demanding its complete removal and has introduced a bill to that effect in the Bundestag. It was debated for the first time on 11 June and referred to the committees.
The conference of justice ministers chose a narrower path. It wants the expanded protection to apply in future only to municipal officeholders and elected representatives. Senior politicians at federal and state level would no longer be covered. Baden-Württemberg’s CDU justice minister, Moritz Oppelt, justified that approach by pointing to the original core of the section: protecting politicians at local level.
Cem Özdemir also presented himself as unbothered. He would not report anyone over “Lügenfritz”, the Green politician said. Politicians needed a thick skin. The line was reached with death threats, sexualized attacks or attacks on family members.
The Social Democratic Party (SPD) is slowing things down. Carmen Wegge, the legal policy spokeswoman for the Bundestag parliamentary group, said the party was open to understandable limits in insult offenses. In her view, abolishing the section would come at the wrong time. Investigations had risen from 2,600 in 2025 to 4,500.
The nongovernmental organization HateAid is also warning against removing the provision. The organization points to specialized prosecution and to the protection of those who bear political responsibility locally. If the section were abolished, it believes structures could be lost that now focus on digital attacks against politicians.
The Polls Point in Opposite Directions
Public opinion offers no clear mandate. A Forsa poll for RTL and stern found that 58% want to keep the section. Another 38% supported its abolition. Among supporters of the CDU/CSU and SPD, backing for retaining it was especially high.
An Insa poll for the portal Nius produced the opposite picture. In that survey, 51% supported abolition. Only 27% wanted to keep the section. The figures show how much the result depends on who asks the question and in what setting the debate takes place.
Politically, that is convenient. Those who want to keep the section can point to Forsa. Those who want to abolish it have Insa. Outrage over individual cases has therefore not yet produced a stable majority for a clear repeal.
Why Is Nothing Happening?
The simple answer is that the Bundestag would have to act. The conference of justice ministers can call for reform, but it cannot change the law. Individual ministers can voice criticism. Parties can introduce motions. What matters is a parliamentary majority.
So far, that majority is not visible. Within the CDU/CSU, there is willingness to reform the law but no unified line. The FDP is taking a more liberal position, but it is not currently in government. The AfD is demanding complete abolition, but the other parties rule it out as a partner. The SPD does not want to give up the protection. For now, the section remains politically untouched.
There is also the municipal level. Anyone who removes Section 188 entirely has to explain how mayors, local councillors and voluntary elected representatives are to be protected from massive attacks. At local level, the threats are real. Many politicians who appear relaxed at federal level do not want to ignore that point.
That is why the debate is moving toward restriction. Senior politicians could fall out of the special protection, while municipal officeholders and elected representatives would remain covered. It would be the typical compromise: enough reform to defuse the “Lügenfritz” case politically and enough protection to avoid the accusation that local politicians are being left alone online.
