December 30, 2025, 7:06 am | Read time: 3 minutes
Should people on the internet only be allowed to discuss under their real names in the future? The demand for a real-name requirement is gaining new political support while also facing significant opposition. The line between combating hate speech and protecting freedom of expression is a delicate one. Why the debate has been reignited, who is driving it, and what legal questions remain open are revealed by looking at the current positions.
The demand for a real-name requirement on social media is not a new topic; it has been discussed for several years in various forms and by different actors. Politically, it is primarily advocated to more effectively curb hate speech, insults, and targeted disinformation.
Discussions Gain Momentum Again
By using their real names, users are expected to be held more accountable for their statements, and the identification of offenders in criminal content is to be facilitated. Proponents also hope for a more factual and respectful discussion culture in the digital space, while critics warn of restrictions on freedom of expression, risks to data protection, and the endangerment of individuals who rely on anonymity for legitimate reasons.
Following the former president of the Federal Constitutional Court, Andreas Voßkuhle, Bavaria’s Digital Minister Fabian Mehring is now also advocating for a real-name requirement on social media. He sees no entitlement to anonymity within the framework of freedom of expression. Berlin’s Justice Senator Felor Badenberg also calls for a targeted debate on this issue.
New Dispute Over Internet Surveillance Ignites
Can the Internet in Germany Be Shut Off at the Push of a Button?
Arguments for the Real-Name Requirement
Voßkuhle sees anonymity on the internet as a cause of heated discussions. Politicians are massively attacked for their statements online, contributing to an agitated society. A real-name requirement could make public debate more objective. However, he emphasizes that this should only be permissible with clear justification and that the ability to criticize the government without fear must be preserved.
Mehring argues that crimes such as insults and threats should also be consistently prosecuted online. Awareness of the non-anonymous nature of one’s actions on the internet could promote more responsible behavior. Badenberg also warns against the normalization of hate and incitement and calls for stricter rules for platforms.
Criticism of the Real-Name Requirement
In addition to supporters, there are also critics of the real-name requirement. Federal Justice Minister Stefanie Hubig and Felor Badenberg emphasize the importance of anonymity for free expression, which is protected by the constitution. Hubig rejects the real-name requirement, arguing that anonymity should only end in cases of criminal activity.
Badenberg underscores that legitimate reasons for anonymity, such as protection from political persecution, must be preserved. Investigators should have faster identification options in clearly defined cases.