Police officer denigrated

Supreme Court strengthens the rights of shitstorm victims

Archive image from 2021: Police officers at a rally of opponents of corona measures in Innsbruck

(Bild: APA/ZEITUNGSFOTO.AT/DANIEL LIEBL)

The Supreme Court has made a remarkable decision regarding a police officer who was the victim of an online shitstorm following a coronavirus demonstration in 2022. A user had published a picture of the officer on Facebook and accused him of abuse of authority. The user must now pay 3,000 euros in damages.

The police officer was on duty at a demonstration against the Covid-19 measures in Tyrol in February 2021 and was photographed and filmed. He was accused of pulling an 82-year-old man to the ground, arresting him and interrogating him for hours. "Let this policeman's face go around the world. (...) This policeman is guilty," read the Facebook post, which was shared at least a hundred times. According to the court's findings, the officer was able to locate 406 people. 

The Palace of Justice in Vienna, seat of the Supreme Court

(Bild: APA/Roland Schlager)

Police officer did not take part in official act
In fact, the police officer pictured had only been part of a police cordon and had not taken part in the official act against the 82-year-old. The person concerned sued several Facebook users who had not checked the truthfulness of the original post under their real names, shared it and made disparaging remarks about him. The officer felt that the accusation that he had used police violence was degrading and shameful, as he had to justify himself to friends and even a superior.

The user accused in this case had the post on his Facebook page for six days, whereupon he was sued by the police officer for non-material damages. The lower courts initially only awarded the officer 450 euros, but the Supreme Court partially upheld an appeal brought by him. He was awarded the entire 3000 euros claimed.

Sharing the costs is a matter for the tortfeasor
The fact that the cause of individual consequences of a shitstorm cannot be clarified and that the damage is indivisible must be borne by the injuring parties "with the consequence that the victim can justifiably demand compensation for the entire damage from only one of them by way of joint and several liability", emphasized the Supreme Court in its reasoning.

In other words, participating in a shitstorm can be expensive in the future. Anyone who participates in online hate speech must expect to have to pay the total damages claimed by the victim in full themselves in advance and then have to take care of the distribution among the other perpetrators themselves.