Suche
Mein Konto
El Hotzo acquitted: Is dangerous satire really allowed?
Sebastian Hotz, alias "El Hotzo", was acquitted in Berlin. A judgment about the limits of satire and freedom of expression.
El Hotzo acquitted: Is dangerous satire really allowed?
On Wednesday, July 23, 2025, Sebastian Hotz, better known as the "El Hotzo", was acquitted of the Berlin District Court of Tiergarten. He was accused of being approved by his posts on platform X crimes and disrupted public peace. These posts contained a regretful statement about a failed assassination attempt on Donald Trump, in which an assassin in Pennsylvania shot several people in July and injured Trump's right ear. However, the court saw in Hotz ’statements of punishment and explained that freedom of expression also included such provocative statements. Judge Andrea Wilms emphasized the importance that various opinions and their effects can be argued, even if the content is considered tasteless.
The prosecutor, who demanded a mild fine of 6,000 euros, argued that satirists were not above the law either, and described Hotz 'posts as a form of hate crime. With over 740,000 followers on X, the risk is high that his statements could seriously disrupt public peace.
satire and freedom of expression
in public is increasingly discussing the borders of satire and freedom of expression. While some consider the effects of Hotz ‘jokes to be questionable, there are also voices that stand up for the freedom of expression. The situation raises the question of what exactly satire can and where the border between humor and hurtful statements runs. This debate is not new; She commemorates the reactions after the death of the former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in 2013 when a song that celebrated her death created heated discussions and different opinions.
The BBC decided at the time to only briefly play the controversial song, which illustrates how sensitive the topic is. While some people expressed pleasure about Thatcher's death, others find such reactions to be inappropriate and even hurtful. The El Hotzo case raises similar questions and shows that dealing with satirical statements in a pluralistic society is complex.
Hotz himself explained that as a satirist, he was a bit more dubious ”and that his statements should be understood as a joke. This statement reflects the tension between freedom to make jokes and the responsibility associated with a large followers. The reactions to his posts illustrate the different interpretations of satire in an increasingly polarized world.
In summary, it should be noted that El Hotzo's acquittal is not only an individual judgment, but also a significant discussion about the limits of satire and the responsibility of opinion leaders in today's society. Even if the court did not classify its statements as punishable, the question of where the boundaries of satirical freedom runs remains a hotly controversial topic in public.