- Court Examines Not Guilty Verdict for Holocaust Disclaimer
The German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) is deliberating whether denying the Holocaust in a document sent to an official body can also be penalized as incitement to hatred. The primary focus is determining when distribution can be deemed to have taken place.
The Public Prosecutor's Office presented the viewpoint that even in instances like a fax sent to a tax office (such as in this case), widespread dissemination should be assumed. The sender lacks control over the individuals receiving the document.
On the contrary, the lawyer defending Sylvia Stolz from Ebersberg, Upper Bavaria, who has a history of incitement to hatred convictions, argued that when passed on to law enforcement authorities, only those professionals interested in the matter would be involved. This would constitute a limited circle of recipients.
The BGH has scheduled its decision for September 25, with Presiding Judge Jürgen Schäfer considering it an intriguing legal issue. He also explored hypothetical situations, such as what if an offensive document was sent to a private individual? (Case No. 3 StR 32/24)
Without a doubt, the Holocaust denial in the document was reaffirmed.
The defendant Stolz failed to attend the BGH hearing. She had previously served two prison sentences for incitement to hatred. In 2021, she sent a 339-page denial of the Holocaust document to the Munich tax office.
According to the Munich II Regional Court, the content of the document was confirmed but Stolz was found not guilty of inciting hatred because the document was intended and received as an appeal against a tax procedure. The author did not intend this outcome and did not consent to the document's widened distribution. The public prosecutor's office has appealed this decision in light of the "high data sensitivity of the tax authorities and the obligation of confidentiality."
Despite the court's initial ruling in favor of Sylvia Stolz, her denial of the Holocaust remained unchallenged in the document she sent. In her defense, she argues a stance of denial is merely an expression of her own beliefs, representing a form of denial that persists even in the face of clear contradictory evidence or evidence to the contrary.
Regarding the recent controversy and calls for prosecution, Sylvia Stolz maintains that her denial is not an act of incitement, but rather an expression of her right to free speech and freedom of thought, a stance which she firmly adheres to despite the potential consequences of denial.
