Is the Süddeutsche Zeitung when it comes to Nazi pictures above the law? Bloggers have exactly the same rights as the German press!

English  version  (for chronological  documentation  and  presentation at  the  USCIS.gov)

Munich public prosecutor
Linprunstraße 25
80097 München

February 13, 2016

 C R I M I N A L   C O M P L A I N T

Accused:  Süddeutsche Zeitung
Süddeutscher Verlag GmbH, Hultschiner Straße 8, 81677 München

Offense:    Infringement of § 86a STGB
When and where: 2010 to 2013 in Munich, Germany

The undersigned are informed and believe that

Count 1

On August 16, 2011, the SZ published under the title "From the Guide to Miss - estrogen for Hitler" a photo of Hitler in uniform and with a clearly recognizable Nazi swastika on his sleeve. (Attachment 1)

The snappy title of the article was probably deliberately chosen to lure readers and it is devoid of any express distancing from National Socialism.

Count 2

On June 10, 2013, an article "Chief ideologist diary of Hitler appeared" also displays a picture of Hitler with two clearly visible swastikas. (Appendix 2)

Count 3

On May 10, 2013 an image with Goebbels and two clearly visible swastikas was shown in a series of photographs.The description below the image reads "dramaturgical climax". A rejection of National Socialism is clearly not apparent in this form of phrasing. (Appendix 3)

Count 4

On October 15, 2010, the SZ shows in a trivializing form under the title "self-Gleichschaltung" two items with swastikas, including a paper lantern. It says in the description among others: "toys for the little Nazi: The exhibition 'Hitler and the Germans' examines the relationship between leader and people." (Appendix 4)

Any distancing from National Socialism can not be seen with the best of intentions.

Count 5

The Süddeutsche Verlag GmbH knew and we quote the chief prosecutor of Munich Steinkraus-Koch:

"Every kind of use of such (symbols of Nazi tyranny),  even without any intention of an association with National Socialism of the user is - what was known to you - prohibited in public in order to avoid any appearance of a revival of such unconstitutional efforts." (1)

Apart from that, the images with Nazi swastikas in the SZ are shown on the "Internet, in other words to a completely uncontrollable quantity of users" (2). These "images - because they circulate on the internet - can never be deleted". (3)

To make matters worse, the pictures in the SZ "were also not sufficiently recognizable as proof" that the SZ "is an obvious opponent of the Nazi tyranny". (4)

On the presumption "of the principle ... according to which - and also in the presence of the other requirements of § 86a STGB - that each kind of use of a Nazi symbol  satisfies the conditions of § 86a STGB regardless of whether the use of the mark serves as promotion of National Socialism (see this BayObLGSt 2002, 43, 44;. BVerfG NJW 2006 3052, 3053) "(5).

The images given as examples here (there are more displayed in the SZ) share in our opinion one common fact: "A rejection (of National Socialism) is not visible." (6) Judging from the pictures it "also does not appear that the (accused) clearly denounces National Socialism." (5)

Count 6

Since the Süddeutsche Zeitung is a commercial company, it can be assumed that

"the (accused) displayed these images with swastikas in its article, to have an eye-catching hanger for his (products). However,  precisely this is to be avoided by § 86a STGB. It is the formal exclusion of certain symbols from permissible forms of communication (taboo) to prevent a habituation effect" 

as judge Bassler from the LG Munich summoned. (7)

We therefore ask you to open an investigation and to inform us of the outcome of the investigation. In this context we would like to point to Article 3 of the Basic Law of Germany.

I & daughter
 ___________________________
(1) indictment against me from 21.10. 2014_ Az 112 Js 170286/14 of Attorney Steinkraus-Koch
(2) quotation from the judgment on behalf of the people of Judge Grain on 02/11/2014, AZ 855 Cs 112 Js 203869/12, page 3, against me
(3) Ibid
(4) ibid
(5) Quotation from Decision of OLG Munich I of 26 Feb. 2015 AZ 5 OLG 13 Ss 1/15 against me
(6) Quote judgment LG Munich Page 7 of 10 May 2015 AZ 18 Ns 112 Js 170286/14 (Judge Bassler)
(7) Ibid, page 7 and 8