If a suspicion of a person is to be reported publicly, a minimum stock of evidence is required. There must be research results that are viable from the point of view of journalists. Often the revelations of witnesses, often affected, are against the editorial offices. The threat of punishment for false affidavits gives you an increased value of evidence. At the same time, they are considered privileged. This means that they are not treated like interview expressions or other public explanations. Stefanie Schorkf.Azin of the case law has long been the opinion that any request for injunctive relief should be directed directly and exclusively to the media. Witnesses should not be restricted in their freedom of expression for fear of revocation, injunctive relief or damages. The examination of the court is solely responsible for the examination of whether their descriptions are correct. The need for legal protection was discussed against witnesses in a separate process. In contradiction to this, the cuts seem to be established in recent times to personally sue the publisher and, if successful, personally sue the sources. This text comes from the Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung. If identifiable, these are then only in court, have an enormous risk of process and, unlike the medium, which can rely on affidavits, prove the truth of their descriptions themselves. This is not appropriate and in fact means that the privilege is lifted up. The medium checks, the reporting interests against personal rights and decides whether and how the description of an informant is published. All of this is not the task of the witness. He has no influence on this process. If the development is not stopped, informants can only be recommended to only get involved in background talks for their own protection and to meet punitive anonymization agreements with journalists. However, they do not support public reporting and in danger of the press function of the press.
