IS POSSESSING BESTIALITY VIDEOS PROHIBITED IN GERMANY
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Germany historically permitted sex with animals under narrow conditions after a 1969 law that allowed it unless the animal suffered “significant harm,” but political and legal shifts since 2012–2013 moved to ban the practice and to treat related media as criminal, and modern legal summaries describe possession of bestiality material as prohibited and punishable [1] [2] [3].
1. A legal starting point that tolerated zoophilia under “no significant harm”
In 1969 West Germany removed a blanket prohibition and left sex with animals lawful so long as it did not inflict “significant harm” on the animal, a formulation that effectively tolerated some forms of zoophilia under German criminal law for decades [1].
2. Political pressure and the 2012–2013 shift toward a ban
Growing campaigning by animal‑welfare groups and a change in political will led Germany’s ruling coalition to propose changes to animal‑welfare law aimed at making sex with animals explicitly illegal, a move reported in 2012 and framed as a reversal of the 1969 position [1] [2].
3. What the reporting says about criminalizing media and possession
Contemporary overviews of German pornography and criminal law list bestiality among content categories that are strictly banned — alongside child pornography and non‑consensual sex — and state that creating, sharing or possessing bestiality material can carry severe penalties, with some legal summaries citing prison terms comparable to those for other extreme sexual offenses [3].
4. Where the sources are explicit and where they are not
The BBC and The Guardian reports document the political decision to ban bestiality as part of animal‑welfare reforms [1] [2] but these news stories focus principally on outlawing the act itself rather than parsing every criminal offense connected to recordings; the detailed claim that possession of videos is criminalized comes from a legal‑summary site that lists possession among prohibited items [3], so the evidence in the provided reporting supports a legislative and prosecutorial trend against both the act and related media but does not supply a verbatim statutory paragraph defining possession as an offense.
5. Competing framings and implicit agendas
Animal‑welfare NGOs framed the change as closing a harmful legal loophole and elevating animal protection [1] [2], while advocates for zoophiles argued about consent and personally framed animals as equals — an argument the media reported but which has not carried legal weight in the legislative debates documented [2]; the legal‑summary site projects a consumer‑focused framing that highlights online platforms’ obligations, which may reflect an agenda toward content‑regulation clarity [3].
6. Reasonable conclusion from the provided sources
Taken together, the sources indicate that Germany moved from a permissive 1969 rule to an explicit ban on sexual acts with animals and that current legal summaries describe bestiality content — including videos — as part of categories of material that are banned from creation, distribution, and possession [1] [2] [3]; however, the provided reporting does not include a verbatim modern statute text or a court decision explicitly quoted here that states the precise elements and penalties of a possession offense, so absolute legal precision on statutory wording cannot be asserted from these sources alone.
7. Practical takeaway
Authorities and reputable legal guides cited here treat bestiality content as illegal and subject to severe penalties in modern Germany, and anyone relying on this topic for legal compliance should consult the current criminal code and court rulings or an official legal source for the exact statutory language and penalties, since the cited news coverage and secondary legal summary together show a clear prohibition trend but do not reproduce the exact statute text in these excerpts [1] [2] [3].