Punishment for ex-politician from Austria: harassed, sued, convicted

It was a memorable process in an equally noteworthy case; It was necessary to explore to what extent a woman can defend herself against sexual harassment and where self-justice begins: The former Austrian Green politician Sigi Maurer, 33, had published in May via Twitter two obscene, sexist messages to her. The messages had been sent to her from the Facebook postbox of the Viennese beer shop owner Albert L.

Maurer, a member of the Austrian Parliament from 2013 to 2017, justified her move by saying that such news was not punishable under Austrian law. She had nothing else to help but to make public the bad communications and sender.

L. then defended himself legally. He was wrongly pilloried and destroyed in his economic existence. He sued Maurer for libel and credit damage, demanded 60,000 euros. He did not even write the messages and did not know who was behind them. His computer was in his shop and was publicly available, even for customers.

The District Court for Criminal Matters in Vienna Maurer has now sentenced for foul libel to a fine of 3000 euros and a payment to L. "because of injury suffered" in the amount of 4000 €. Added to this would be the costs of litigation and legal fees, which are likely to exceed the penalty and compensation, as Judge Stefan Apostol said in the verdict.

"For honorable reasons" acted

Maurer was not convicted for credit damage. That would have presupposed that Maurer had purposely spread a false factual claim to harm L. The court, however, believed Maurer that she assumed that L. had written the texts.

Maurer had good reason for that. Finally, she had been harassed and mobbed by men shortly before receiving the Facebook news before L's deal. Both messages had been sent to her shortly after by L's post office box. And in both was that special spelling to be recognized, which was also found on L's Facebook page and on the homepage of his beer shop: a space in front of several exclamation points.

Sigrid Maurer, known by most as Sigi, had never denied having published the news she had received. That's what she did, the court said. However, she had shown no remorse, so the confession had not been mitigating, Judge Apostol justified the verdict.

According to Maurer, however, the court said that until now she had been unblemished and had acted "out of respectable motives". However, she did not do this in a private environment, but via a screenshot on Twitter. This would have to be applied to Maurer the same scale as a media company. It applies the journalistic due diligence.

Court does not believe in much of the plaintiff

Maurer's lawyer Maria Windhager had argued that it was "a little too much to ask" if Maurer had to contact the harasser after complaining about the bad news, to ask him if he had actually written the news.

Windhager and Maurer were visibly shaken that a "perpetrator-victim reversal" had taken place in this case. One of Ls' lawyers had asked Maurer on the first day of the trial in early September why she would not change the street if she knew she was being sexually molested before L's business.

Judge Apostol stated in his ruling that he believed that businessman L. was "largely untruthful". But in the course of the trial, he failed to prove to him that he had actually sent the evil texts. A single-item proof, according to which L. had telephoned his wife at the time the first message was dropped off and must have been in the shop, was not sufficient proof that L. himself was there - he claimed he had been away from the store and smoked.

The court also found that the curious spelling indicates that L. was the author of the obscene texts. But even the administrator of the website, the former shopkeeper and friend Ls, is not excluded as the author. He has comparable bad spelling skills to the day. If Maurer had been able to prove the authorship of sleazy news beyond doubt, her act would not have been punishable, Judge Apostol said.

"Nevertheless I will be sentenced"

And so a woman was convicted who "took the courageous step to the public," as attorney Windhager said. And even though the man whom this woman believes to have been molested, even in the judgment of the court, in many parts says the untruth.

Maurer now wants to appeal. On Twitter, she wrote: "The judge is lying, Mr. L. is lying and he believes everything I say, yet I will be convicted."

I oppose extremely sexist, degrading messages and will be sued for it. The judge is there, Mr. L. is lying and he believes everything I say. Nevertheless, I am sentenced. Well, then we appeal. To Strasbourg if need be.

Maurer is not the only one who is dissatisfied with the verdict: L. is considering further legal action against Maurer.