Communications and Media Law

In episode 185 of “Follow the Rechtsstaat”, Prof. Niko Härting and Dr Stefan Brink discuss recent rulings and debates that straddle the line between light and shadow. First, they address a proposal to schedule demonstrations and counter-demonstrations at different times. They then discuss the planned reform of data protection supervision. Other topics include a ruling by the European Court of Justice on a Swedish database containing information on criminal proceedings, as well as the publication of athletes’ personal data in cases of doping offences.

In episode 184 of “Follow the Rechtsstaat”, Prof. Niko Härting and Dr Stefan Brink discuss well-known contentious issues that are once again in the legal and political spotlight. The focus is on the complaint lodged by Reporters Without Borders against the use of spyware by the Federal Intelligence Service, data protection risks associated with the use of cloud solutions by public libraries, and international data transfers. The two also discuss what implications current developments in the US might have for the adequacy decision on the EU-US Data Privacy Framework.

This episode features Prof. Frauke Rostalski, Professor of Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure, Philosophy of Law and Comparative Law at the University of Cologne, and a member of the German Ethics Council. First (03:02), the discussion turns to the draft bill on strengthening civil and criminal law protection against digital violence. What gaps in criminal liability does the draft bill close? Subsequently (10:24), reference is made to areas where freedom of expression is coming under increasing pressure. Rostalski describes her observation of a “vulnerability of discourse” and, from minute 15:54, reports on the climate of discourse at universities. The discussion then (17:48) turns to criminal law as a means of defence for a resilient democracy, for example through the withdrawal of the right to stand for election in cases of incitement to hatred. In this context, the discussion also turns (from 22:10) to the report by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution classifying the AfD as “confirmed right-wing extremist”. The podcast concludes with a positive outlook on the discourse on freedom of expression.

First, Dr Stefan Brink and Prof Niko Härting (00:33) discuss the new data deletion policies for the Siri chat function (Apple) and the WhatsApp messaging service (Meta). From minute 09:59, the decision of the Lüneburg Administrative Court of 29 April 2026, ref. 1 A 85/24, is discussed. The town of Buchholz had published a call for a demonstration against right-wing extremism. The AfD was also mentioned in this context. The local branch of this party unsuccessfully challenged this. Last but not least (20:25), Niko and Stefan discuss the recently published activity report by the Federal Data Protection Commissioner. From minute 29:10 onwards, they highlight in particular the sections on surveillance by the intelligence services. Does the BND have a flawless data deletion routine?

First (00:38), Dr Stefan Brink and Prof. Niko Härting discuss the coalition agreement of Baden-Württemberg’s new state government, which provides for staff cuts of up to 40 per cent at the State Data Protection Commissioner’s office. One of the reasons given for this is a planned centralisation within the Federal Data Protection Commissioner’s office. Robbing Peter to pay Paul? Subsequently (11:02), Härting and Brink discuss a ruling by the Berlin Administrative Court dated 6 May 2026, ref. VG 42 K 73/25, which confirmed the legality of ID checks and video surveillance at Berlin’s summer swimming pools. Finally (21:21), the topic is freedom of the press and freedom of expression. The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) dismissed a lawsuit brought by the betting provider Tipico against Der Spiegel. Tipico sought to challenge the statement: “Four men from Karlsruhe founded and built up the company; they pushed the boundaries of what is legally permissible and went beyond them.” Brink finds the decision unsettling, whereas Härting considers it well-founded.

Article 50 of the AI Regulation stipulates that, from August 2026, certain AI-related content must be labelled (find out more here). There is considerable uncertainty as to what constitutes a ‘deepfake’ that is subject to this labelling requirement.

Prof. Hans-Jürgen Papier, President of the Federal Constitutional Court from 2002 to 2010, on the subject of freedom of expression. The podcast begins with the Federal Constitutional Court’s landmark Lüth ruling on freedom of expression (02:43). Prof. Papier warns that freedom of expression is not given sufficient consideration in legal practice, society or the media. At the same time, he also has words of praise for the Federal Constitutional Court. The podcast goes on to explore a number of questions: Why is freedom of expression sometimes seen as a threat to democracy? (06:41) Should there be a right to express opinions anonymously? (14:48) How should ‘trusted flaggers’ be assessed from the perspective of the rule of law? (21:05) Why are people who invoke freedom usually accused of selfishness? (41:26) Finally (48:13), two perspectives are considered: how citizens view the state and how the state views citizens.