The story from Remix News (linked below and echoed across outlets like Brussels Signal, Anadolu Agency, and others) is a classic example of how Germany's strict laws on insults and "hate speech" can veer into absurdity that feels straight out of a dystopian satire. An elderly pensioner in Heilbronn posted a simple Facebook comment in October 2025 under a police announcement about a temporary flight ban during Chancellor Friedrich Merz's visit: essentially "Pinocchio is coming to HN" with a long-nose emoji. It was a cheeky jab implying Merz is a liar — likely referencing broken promises on things like taxes, debt rules, or economic policies.
Three months later (late January 2026), the man got a letter from the criminal police notifying him of an investigation under Section 188 of the German Criminal Code. This provision (added in 2021) ramps up penalties for insults or defamation against politicians if it could "substantially impair" their public duties — up to 3 years in prison or fines, harsher than the standard insult law (Section 185). The police flagged it via routine social media monitoring of their own post, and forwarded it (along with about 30 other snarky comments under the same thread, like calling Merz a "Baron of Lies" or referencing the Baron Munchausen tall tales).
The pensioner defended it as harmless satire, ambiguous, and protected political expression — no direct name mentioned, just implication. Legal experts quoted in reports (e.g., constitutional lawyer Prof. Volker Boehme-Neßler calling it "hysterical madness," Berlin lawyer Dr. Moritz Ott saying it's clearly covered by Article 5 free speech protections in the Basic Law) largely agreed: "Pinocchio" is a symbolic value judgment/metaphor for dishonesty, not a factual defamation or actionable insult. Public figures like chancellors "have to endure" sharper criticism.
And indeed, prosecutors dropped the case quickly — by February 24, 2026, the Heilbronn office announced it was terminated, confirming it fell under protected opinion and criticism of government. No charges, no fine, just wasted time and paperwork for an old guy who probably thought it was a throwaway joke.
This isn't isolated. Germany has a pattern of aggressive enforcement around online speech targeting politicians:
Police raids (often early-morning) on homes for calling figures like Robert Habeck an "idiot," sharing satirical memes about Nancy Faeser ("I hate freedom of opinion"), or crude comments about Annalena Baerbock.
Cases leading to fines (€800+), suspended sentences, or even short jail time (e.g., a civil engineer imprisoned for 30 days over insults to an SPD politician).
Politicians themselves (including from Greens, AfD, SPD) have called Merz "Pinocchio" or "Pinocchio Fritze" without repercussions — irony noted in coverage.
Broader stats: "Hate speech" prosecutions surged (thousands yearly), with dedicated police units monitoring platforms. Surveys show ~74% of Germans feel fear of repercussions chills free expression.
Germany seeming even more crazy woke than Australia hits on a real contrast. Australia has its own issues — section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act catches offensive racial/religious remarks, and there've been high-profile cases (e.g., around vilification laws, or recent pushes on misinformation bills that critics call speech controls). But outright criminal probes for calling a leader "Pinocchio" (a fairy-tale metaphor for lying, not hate speech or incitement) would likely get laughed out of court as protected political satire under implied constitutional free speech principles.
Germany's approach stems from post-WWII efforts to prevent hate, extremism, and authoritarian relapse — hence strong laws against Holocaust denial, Nazi symbols, incitement to hatred (§130), and now amplified protections for politicians via §188. But critics (including international voices like U.S. officials comparing it to lèse-majesté, or "insulting the king") argue it creates overreach, chilling effects, and a two-tier system where elites get extra shielding while everyday criticism gets policed.
In short: the investigation was real, the overreaction was real, but the quick drop shows even German authorities recognized it as ridiculous. Still, the fact that police resources went into this at all — monitoring, letter-sending, formal probe — speaks to a bureaucracy primed for zero-tolerance on anything sniffable as "insult."
If Australia's heading toward more content moderation laws, this is a cautionary tale: what starts as protecting dignity or democracy can slide into policing jokes about noses growing.