In this case the court was asked to decide whether a particular publication of one's opinion, which could be seen as libel, was protected by the freedom of speech principle. The plaintiff who had already been issued a sentence in the criminal court for incitement to riot and libel was appealling his sentence on the basis of his Constitutional right to freedom of expression per Art.5(1) GG. During the time of the Gulf War, the accused had placed a number of pacifistic and anti-war bumper stickers on his car, among them one which stated "Soldiers are Murderers" with a simulated signature "Kurt Tucholsky." The charge against the defendant was one of libel based upon the theory that all soldiers were the targets of these accusations, including the members of the Bundeswehr, and this statement placed them on the lowest social level, namely those guilty of murder.
The Constitutional Court declared that this charge was nonsense, since statements of opinion must be taken in the proper context when such statements are said to brush against the rights of others. The lower criminal courts failed to do this as they took the statement to be a direct accusation, which truly would deserve a stiff penalty. When read in conjunction with the other bumper stickers, some of which even placed soldiers in the role of victims, the statement could not be considered an all-encompassing indictment of an entire institution.
The court stated that noone could seriously believe this was a direct accusation of the Bundeswehr (name for the Armed Forces following the second World War) as no German soldier has taken part in any armed military action since WWII. Moreover, the court had its doubts whether the Bundeswehr could even be considered at all as a target of this statement which was made in 1935 by Kurt Tucholsky
1 BvR 1423/92