Reply

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A reply is a separate representation of a situation that was previously reported in a medium by the person concerned. The reply is thus a term of press law . Anyone who is affected by a report about their person or organization should be able to articulate themselves or correct something in the same medium in a comparable place and in a comparable presentation free of charge. The right to reply is based on Section 11 of the Reich Press Act (RPG) of 1874 and is now regulated in the press laws of the federal states.

Counter-representation by Heide Simonis in picture

claim

Each individual can decide for himself whether and how he wants to present himself to the public and whether or to what extent third parties can dispose of his personality. The media law right of counter-representation is therefore the result of the general right of personality protected in the Basic Law ( Art. 2, Paragraph 1 in conjunction with Art. 1, Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law) as the right to self-determination over the public representation of oneself in the area of ​​tension with freedom of the press ( Art. 5 para. 1 GG).

In Germany the reply claim (z. B. § 11 HmbPresseG, § 12 NDR-STV) in press laws of the countries (eg. B. § 10 HmbMedienG) radio and media laws of the countries, and in Rundfunkstaatsvertrag (§ 56 Rundfunkstaatsvertrag ) anchored (usually the law of the place of publication is decisive). The legitimate interest in a reply must be given, this is derived from the protected general right of personality ( Art. 1 and Art. 2 GG). The right of reply is a special claim of civil media law that has no equivalent in general civil law .

According to this, every person and every body (e.g. also a stock corporation , an association or an authority) that is affected by a factual allegation spread in the media can articulate their own deviating representation of the facts in the same medium free of charge. However, the reply may again only contain statements of fact (no expressions of opinion ).

It must be requested in writing by the person concerned and signed personally and requested in close temporal connection with the reported reporting, that is a maximum of approx. Three months for press products and approx. Two months for radio. The counter-notification should not be more extensive than the original reporting complained about.

The newspaper, broadcaster or internet provider is obliged to publish the reply immediately in the next available edition of the medium in the same place and in the same layout as the article in question, if necessary also on the front page (principle of equality of arms, see also Caroline-von -Monaco judgment I ). However, it is permissible to attach a so-called editorial tail in which the medium is z. B. dissociated from the content of the reply.

For the reply, it is irrelevant whether the alleged factual allegation was true or false. Anyone who asserts the right to reply must, however, be affected by the factual assertion themselves and assert a legitimate interest . A legitimate interest is missing e.g. B. if the reply is manifestly untrue or completely irrelevant in terms of content.

If the medium refuses to reply, the person concerned can enforce it in accordance with § § 935  ff. ZPO according to the provisions for an injunction before a civil court . Neither the urgency nor the truthfulness have to be made credible.

In addition to the right to reply, the person concerned may also assert claims for omission , correction , damages or monetary compensation for immaterial damage, whereby a reply that has been made can have the effect of reducing the damage.

Only the affected person, the affected company, body, the affected authority itself is entitled to a reply. Only the affected person may request a reply. This does not have to be written by the person concerned, but signed. The person concerned can comment immediately, within two weeks is considered the appropriate deadline. The request to reprint a counter-representation may only be made to the publisher within three months after the article has been published. Proof of the truth of the reply does not have to be provided, a reply is not a correction. Thus, after a printed counter-statement, there is a statement against a statement, the reader is not able to know which statement is correct.

On December 19, 2007, the Federal Constitutional Court ruled that there is only a right to a reply in the case of ambiguous factual assertions if a statement “has to impose itself as an irrefutable conclusion”.

In a decision of November 4, 2013, the Federal Constitutional Court also tightened the requirements for a right to reply against headlines. According to this, a right to reply against headlines will only be considered in future if the “wording on the front page can no longer be understood as a lead question that arouses curiosity”. Rather, what is required is that the lead question must be qualified with sufficient clarity as a factual assertion to the effect that a certain event has taken place.

The success rate of counter-notification procedures against headlines has fallen significantly since this decision.

Form and publication

A reply is first requested directly from the respective publisher or responsible editor. The editor in charge and the editor-in-chief do not have to be identical. If the request for a reply is rejected, an attempt can be made to enforce it by means of a "preliminary injunction". This takes place at the civil court, but mostly without a hearing. The form and content of the statutory provisions for obtaining a reply must be complied with.

A reply may relate solely to assertions of fact in an article or report, not to opinions, assumptions, comments, or value judgments; likewise only on the editorial part of a title. The reply itself may only contain factual assertions. Advertisements, with the exception of political advertisements, usually do not guarantee a right to reply.

A reply will be marked as such. The length of the original text should be appropriate in comparison to the rejected part of the text, and it must be published in the same font and font size. Above all, a counter-notification must be placed in the same place as the objected article in the publication . As a result, more and more counter notifications have to be published on front pages .

The counter-notification must begin with a brief reference to the original report, which is the reason for the counter-notification, so that the reader, listener or viewer can classify the counter-notification at all (“On XXXXXX, XXX reported that it was ...”). The actual counter-notification is then introduced with the words "I state this ..." and then the perspective of the person concerned follows.

Editorial tail

The editors may not change the respective counter-notification text, but after the counter-notification, the editorial staff of the medium often adds a so-called editorial tail, here the editors can comment again on the counter-notification themselves. As a rule, it is mentioned that the editors are obliged to print the reply, often supplemented by the statement that, in the opinion of the editors, the statement of the reply does not correspond to the facts or that the editors stick to their first statement, but often also that Sentence "XXX is right". In terms of content, the editors can distance themselves from the statement of the reply. In doing so, however, it may only question the facts of the reply, but not devalue the reply.

The legality of the editorial tail as a response to the reply is partly regulated in the Federal Republic of Germany within the framework of the right of reply in the press laws of the federal states. In Saarland , the addition of an editorial tail was forbidden by amendment of the State Media Act 1994 by the SPD majority in the Saarland state parliament under the then Prime Minister Oskar Lafontaine . Critics and political opponents described the change at that time as an arbitrary campaign of revenge against journalists in the wake of his pension and red light affair. She entered the press law debate as “Lex Lafontaine”. After the change of the state parliament majorities and the government in Saarland in 1999, the CDU majority in the state parliament defused the relevant paragraph.

history

Princess Caroline of Monaco was the first person to get a front-page reply. For example, in 2002 the Bildzeitung had to reprint a reply from Wolfgang Thierse, in his capacity as President of the Bundestag, about the meeting of German and French parliamentarians in Paris, which the Bild-Zeitung called “Paris-Sause”, a big party at the expense of taxpayers.

With the so-called “Turks in Bingen” ruling, the Federal Constitutional Court has strengthened the importance of a reply based on the right of personality .

Due diligence

Journalists are fundamentally obliged to research their newspapers so well that they do not publish any false claims ( journalistic due diligence ) and thus do not provoke a reply. Many counter-statements undermine the credibility of a medium. Usually require members of the public from tabloids , magazines and magazines rebuttal. However, telemedia services such as blogs can also require counter notifications.

Alternatives

A reply brings with it the difficulty that the person concerned has to repeat the original statement and thus call it into public memory. Instead, a right to correction or revocation by the medium itself or, in the case of serious consequences, financial compensation can be more effective. For this, however, stricter requirements must be met, in particular the claimant regularly bears the burden of proof for the falsehood of the allegation.

It is true that public figures may also think of alternatives, such as press releases, press conferences, written statements, consultation with the respective author or journalist or the publication of a letter to the editor from the person concerned. However, a statement in the form of a letter to the editor is likely to be problematic insofar as it does not have to correspond to the incriminated article in terms of its layout or scope. In addition, a letter to the editor does not reflect the opinion of the editor, but that of the writer of the letter, so its effect cannot be compared to that of a reply. It should also be borne in mind that there is no legally enforceable claim to the full publication of a letter to the editor.

Effect of the reply

A representative survey of 2000 respondents on a real case showed that the strength of a counter-statement actually corresponds roughly to the effect of a single newspaper article of the same length.

Counter-notification in Switzerland

In Switzerland, the right of reply is guaranteed in Articles 28g to 28l of the Civil Code .

Counter-notification in Austria

In Austria, the right to reply is anchored in Section 9 of the Media Act.

See also

literature

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ BVerfG, decision of December 21, 2016 - 1 BvR 1081/15 marginal no. 15 ff.
  2. ↑ Norman Buse: The right to reply in press law - what should be considered? Website accessed August 9, 2019
  3. ^ Reply of the online lexicon press law, Initiative Tageszeitung.de, accessed on August 9, 2019
  4. ↑ Carsten Kiefer and Holger Bleich: Federal Constitutional Court restricts the right to reply. In: heise online. January 23, 2008, accessed October 5, 2011 .
  5. ↑ BVerfG, decision of November 4, 2013 - 1 BvR 2102/12, 1 BvR 1660/13 para. 25th
  6. ↑ BVerfGE 63, 131
  7. ↑ This way and no other way - The reply in the press work Pressebox, United News Network GmbH, website accessed on August 9, 2019
  8. ↑ cf. Carsten Stephan, Thorsten Schlomm, Klaus Jung: Counterstatement to the article "PSA screening for possible benefits and harm" by Keller et al. in Deutsches Ärzteblatt 2018, 115 (13) A583–7 Letter to the editor to Deutsche Ärzteblatt, June 20, 2018
  9. ↑ Volker Hagemeister: Are newspapers liable for their readers? - Responsibility under press law for letters to the editor presserecht.de, accessed on August 9, 2019
  10. ↑ Thomas Petersen: An experiment on the potential effect of counter statements as a counterbalance to scandalous reporting . In: Journalism . Vol. 51, No. 2 , June 2006, p. 153-167 , doi : 10.1007 / s11616-006-0054-y .
  11. ^ RIS - Media Act § 9 - Consolidated Federal Law. ris.bka.gv.at, October 9, 2014, accessed on March 4, 2016 .