On Friday, general practitioner Lisa-Maria Kellermayr was found dead in her surgery in Seewalchen, Upper Austria. She left three suicide notes. The doctor recently closed her practice and justified this step by saying that she had been receiving threatening letters “from the Covid measures opponents and vaccination opponents scene” for months and that she could no longer afford the costs for security measures.
The suicide of the Austrian doctor is now also shaking German politics. “Digital violence is still not taken seriously by the responsible authorities,” criticized the digital policy spokeswoman for the left, Anke Domscheit-Berg.
There is a lack of professional training and specialized forces, but it is also a question of the will to investigate and the resources. “The structural impunity of digital violence must come to an end,” Domscheit-Berg told the Tagesspiegel.
Like many other politicians, she knows the effects of digital violence from her own experience, but also the ineffectiveness of reports to the police. “None of my ads have ever ended up in court. The Hateaid organization is currently supporting me and maybe with this help I will be able to prosecute a specific case.” Digital violence not only endangers individuals and women in a special way, but also democracy as a whole.
At the weekend, politicians such as Britta Haßelmann, leader of the Greens parliamentary group, had already expressed their shock at the Kellermayr case. “We have to protect people better, because it’s about our freedom and democracy,” explained Hasselmann.
But how is the situation in Germany? The protection of public figures or other people who have recently been increasingly exposed to threats is an important concern of the Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection, a spokeswoman said on request.
“These threats are in no way acceptable. Criminal law also plays its part in protecting these groups of people.” Criminal law has been expanded in several places in this area in the past.
“According to Section 241 of the Criminal Code, not only the threat of a crime is punishable, but also threats with acts against sexual self-determination, physical integrity, personal freedom or against things of significant value.”
The range of penalties for threats online is up to two years – and for threats of a crime made publicly, up to three years imprisonment or a fine. So far, the penalties for threats have been up to one year in prison or a fine.
The protection of persons in political life against insult and slander under Sections 185 and 186 of the Criminal Code has also been expanded. “Anyone who publicly insults others online can now be punished with up to two years in prison instead of up to one.”
In addition, the criminal liability of so-called enemy lists was introduced in the past legislative period. Enemy lists are collections of data, typically address data, which are primarily published on the Internet to give the impression that those affected are defenseless and could become the victim of a crime.
However, in the opinion of specialist politicians, the legal framework is not the biggest problem, but the enforcement of the applicable law. The left-wing digital politician Domscheit-Berg calls for appropriately trained specialists in investigative authorities and the judiciary as well as mandatory further training in the area, including basics such as digital evidence preservation.
The countries also need special public prosecutors for digital violence. More support for the victims in the form of well-equipped counseling centers is also needed. In all of this, the federal and state governments would have to work closely together.
