ECHR decision (Case 35285/16) follow-up: Nazi pics as “eyecatching device” not covered by Art. 10. Let's fact-check

In the decision 'Nix v. Germany' (Case 35285/16) it says:

6. "The Court largely endorsed the domestic courts’ approach, including their view of why Mr Nix had used the picture of Himmler with the swastika, in particular that it had been used as an “eyecatching device”. However, banning the use of such images in that way had been one of the aims of the national legislation criminalising the use of symbols of unconstitutional organisations."

and

47. In the light of their historical role and experience, States which have experienced the Nazi horrors may be regarded as having a special moral responsibility to distance themselves from the mass atrocities perpetrated by the Nazis (ibid., § 243, with further references). The Court considers that the legislature‘s choice to criminally sanction the use of Nazi symbols, to ban the use of such symbols from German political life, to maintain political peace (also taking into account the perception of foreign observers), and to prevent the revival of Nazism (see paragraph 30 above) must be seen against this background.

Noble words and they need to be fact-checked. So a picture of Nazi personality with the swastika is an "eye-catching device" which is not covered by Article 10. Let us verify this bold statement.

I already covered the SPIEGEL cover 'Merkel at the Acropolis with Nazi officers' and the poor article.

BENTO, the insufferable youth website of DER SPIEGEL, featured a cheap shot at the AfD party with a picture of former German Dear Leader in full regalia. Not "eye-catching", or covered by 'Fake News' media privilege, ECHR? I am all ears.

ECHR, might this qualify as "eye-catching"?

Swastikas galore and doping of NS soldiers

A sea of swastikas to publish a simple article about doping of German soldiers is not eye-catching? In the end it did not help much.

SPIEGEL covers of recent years.

Der SPIEGEL is honest about it: "Hitler always  sells"

These articles are by no means critical in any form, often they come across as pretty entertaining. The weekly so-called Nazi documentaries on TV (often 3-5 times a week) are subtle propaganda. At least Der SPIEGEL is honest about it: "Hitler always  sells" (see Spiegel article 'How hitler is the Spiegel?) and airing them is cheap.

How about my open letter to Munich prosecutor Steinkraus-Koch which the ECHR mentions in passing? "Does senior prosecutor Steinkraus-Koch know about the infinite Nazi pictures in German media?".

All those pictures in there do not contravene criminal code 86 and mine did? That requires stretching perceptions to the limit, ECHR.

I have yet to see any, and I mean any, German newspaper that has bothered to write a disclaimer. Why should they, Hitler sells. He means business. Bloggers do not sell.
____________
It would be a grave mistake not to explicitly point to my disclaimer. The risk these Bavarian hypocrites, steeped in neonazi affinity, confiscate my IT equipment a third time is too great.

The Streetwise Professor puts it best about ze Germans:

The moral obtuseness of Germany, of all nations, panting after the business of a nation that has vowed to destroy Israel is mind boggling.

It is especially mind boggling given the German predilection for moral preening, and their tendency to lecture all about their moral superiority.

If you think this is too harsh, consider the fact that Germany’s Incitement to Hatred law (i.e., its Holocaust Denial law) makes it a felony punishable by five years imprisonment for those who:

1. incites hatred against a national, racial, religious group or a group defined by their ethnic origins, against segments of the population or individuals because of their belonging to one of the aforementioned groups or segments of the population or calls for violent or arbitrary measures against them; or
2. assaults the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning an aforementioned group, segments of the population or individuals because of their belonging to one of the aforementioned groups or segments of the population, or defaming segments of the population,

So, if the mullahs did in Germany what they do in Iran on a daily basis, they’d be in the slammer for a nickel.  But they’re OK to do business with, even though they have far more power to act on their threats than some skinhead in Leipzig. AfD is beyond the pale, but the mullahs–now there’s somebody to do business with!