Try it for yourself
016Opinions & facts

An invented accusation is not ordinary criticism.

“I think that is bad” and “That person stole something” are different kinds of statement. Question 016 focuses on false claims about individuals.

About 4 min readReviewed: 19 October 2026
AI-generated symbolic image of a smartphone beside a notebook and reading glasses.
Basic LawArticle 5
Consider what is actually being alleged before sharing. AI-generated symbolic illustration.
The short answer

When publicly spreading false claims about individuals.

Personal honour places limits on expression. Distinguish that from political criticism; not every inaccurate statement automatically constitutes a criminal offence.

Try it for yourselfExam question · No. 016
When is freedom of speech restricted in Germany?

Choose one answer. Your result stays on this page only.

A judgment or a claim that can be checked?

An opinion includes a personal judgment, such as considering a policy proposal unfair. A factual claim describes something that can in principle be checked—for example, whether someone took a particular sum of money. Everyday statements can mix the two.

Spreading an invented accusation can damage someone’s reputation. Article 5 therefore identifies personal honour as a limit. Sections 186 and 187 of the Criminal Code address particular reputation-damaging factual allegations. Saying “that is my opinion” does not automatically make an invented fact permissible.

AI-generated scene of two adults checking an online post together.
Distinguishing a judgment from a factual allegation. Fictional AI-generated scene.

The other three answers

The other options name subjects that may generally be discussed.

when expressing opinions about the federal government

The federal government is not beyond criticism. Views about its decisions generally belong to protected political debate.

when discussing religions

Religions may generally be discussed and criticised. Choosing that subject does not remove expression rights. Limits may arise from a particular statement’s content and circumstances.

when criticizing the state

Criticism of the state is generally protected too. A critical attitude alone is not the restriction this question is seeking.

Not every inaccuracy is automatically criminal.

The catalogue answer summarises an area where limits arise. A legal assessment depends on content, context and the requirements of the applicable law. Section 187, for example, concerns knowingly false facts capable of causing specified reputational harm; Section 186 is worded differently.

Conversely, opinions are not unlimited. An insult or threat is not automatically allowed because it is phrased as a judgment. For the test, remember the contrast between political discussion and harmful false allegations about an individual.

Article 5 · Basic Law ↗
Your memory cue

Judging policy ≠ falsely accusing a person.

Ask whether the statement gives a judgment or alleges a checkable event. Context still matters after that distinction.

Three words for this question

die Behauptungclaim / allegation
A statement presenting something as true.
die Tatsachefact
A circumstance or event that can in principle be checked.
die persönliche Ehrepersonal honour / reputation
A protected interest in how others regard a person.
Grundgesetz · Artikel 5 ↗
Put understanding into practice

One question understood. Ready for the next?

Practise all 310 questions for your state in our four free modes. No account needed. No advertising.

Optional: Plus for history, statistics and targeted revision. €4.99/month including VAT, renewing monthly.

Sources & context

An independently written study guide, not an official BAMF publication or advice for an individual case. The legal sources and explanations below were reviewed on 19 October 2026; the test question comes from the existing question bank.

Both pictures are AI-generated illustrations with fictional people and places. They do not document real events or official proceedings.