## Facts

- In November 1974, terrorists murdered the President of the Berlin Court of Appeals.
- The public broadcaster **Freies Berlin** aired a television journal that reported on the President’s state funeral.
- After the report, a television commentator (“X”) delivered a commentary about the political climate surrounding the murder and the role of public intellectuals.
- In that commentary, X attacked author **Heinrich Böll**, asserting that Böll shared responsibility for the murder because Böll had allegedly called the Federal Republic a “dung heap” (treated by viewers as a quotation of Böll’s words).
- Böll sued X and Freies Berlin in civil court for defamation and damages, seeking **100,000 Deutsche Marks**.
- The trial court dismissed the suit; on appeal, the appellate court reversed and awarded Böll **40,000 Deutsche Marks**, reasoning that the broadcast infringed Böll’s constitutionally protected personality interests by attributing statements to him that he had not made.
- The **Federal Court of Justice (BGH)** reversed the appellate judgment and denied Böll effective relief.
- Böll filed a **constitutional complaint** arguing that the BGH judgment violated his **general right of personality** under **Article 2(1) in conjunction with Article 1(1)** of the Basic Law.

## Issues

1. Whether the BGH, in rejecting Böll’s defamation claim, failed to give adequate effect to Böll’s general right of personality (Art. 2(1) in conjunction with Art. 1(1) GG) when the broadcast attributed words to him that he did not say.
2. Whether **freedom of expression** (Art. 5(1) GG) protects **inaccurate quotations** presented as factual reproductions of another person’s words.
3. Whether a broadcaster may present an arguably reasonable reading of an ambiguous statement **as a quotation** without making clear that it is the commentator’s own reading rather than the speaker’s verbatim words.

## Decision

- The Federal Constitutional Court held that the **BGH judgment violated Böll’s general right of personality** under **Art. 2(1) in conjunction with Art. 1(1) GG**.
- The Court **set aside** the BGH judgment and **remanded** the case for reconsideration consistent with constitutional requirements.
- The Court held that **Art. 5(1) GG does not protect inaccurate quotation**.
- The Court further held that Art. 5(1) GG does not justify presenting a commentator’s interpretation of an ambiguous statement **as a quote** without clearly indicating that it is the commentator’s interpretation.

## Legal Principles

- The **general right of personality** (Art. 2(1) in conjunction with Art. 1(1) GG) protects a person’s social standing and honor and includes a **“right to one’s own word”**—protection against having words falsely attributed to the person.
- When a speaker claims that another person said specific words, that assertion is treated as a **factual claim**; if the quotation is wrong, it can seriously impair the target’s personality interests.
- **Freedom of expression (Art. 5(1) GG) strongly protects opinions**, including sharp public debate, but it **does not extend to incorrect quotations**.
- Even if an interpretation of an ambiguous statement could seem reasonable to an average listener, the interpreter **must not present that interpretation as a quotation**; the audience must be able to tell what is quoted fact and what is the speaker’s own evaluative reading.
- In civil-law disputes that affect fundamental rights, ordinary courts must apply private-law rules in a manner consistent with constitutional rights and must **properly weigh** freedom of expression against personality protection; if the balancing gives too little weight to serious personality harm, the resulting judgment can be unconstitutional.

## Conclusion

Boll v. Freies Berlin required civil courts to protect a person’s “right to one’s own word” when media commentary assigns him statements he did not make. The Federal Constitutional Court set aside the BGH’s denial of relief, holding that Article 5 does not shield inaccurate quotations or the practice of presenting one’s interpretive reading of an ambiguous remark as if it were a verbatim quote, and it remanded for a constitutionally sound balancing of expression and personality rights.


Boll v. Freies Berlin, 54 BVerfGE 208 (1980)