ECHR decision (Case 35285/16) follow-up: "... because he had been convicted for publishing a picture of Chancellor Angela Merkel in Nazi uniform with a swastika armband and a painted Hitler moustache some six weeks before"

And I am back ... Was a little occupied with some public employee fucktard who had sent an online criminal complaint against me using a false name and is now being covered by the rotten Munich court.

So here is again the ECHR and its reasoning. Sit down, it gets a little weird. Legislation in question refers to criminal code 86a. Their decision from April 2018 is here.

. . . . . . . . .

Prior blog post was

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


7. "It then held that Mr Nix must have been aware of the legislation in question, not least because he had been convicted for publishing a picture of Chancellor Angela Merkel in Nazi uniform with a swastika armband and a painted Hitler moustache some six weeks before he had published the blog post at issue."

What a naughty boy this Mr Nix must have been. Publishes a photo of Chancellor for Life Merkel clad in a Nazi uniform on the occasion of the EU/German financial war against Greece in 2012. Does this prick have no decency? Was he not aware that this is ABSOFUCKINGLUTELY VERBOTEN according to Criminal Code 86a?

How about the TV channel Das Erste??

Fair enough, mistakes can happen. But then the court should be required to enquire about the state of misconduct at various German news outlets.

Must Der Stern not "have been aware of the legislation in question"?!

The Local as well in a state of delinquency? What was going on in Good Ol'? Were  they also unaware of the legislation in question??

What the heck were they thinking in Cologne? Is Kolsch a carte blanche perhaps to neglect said legislation in question? I am getting tipsy.

Were they out of their fucking mind at the satirical magazine Der Postillon? The Swastika is no joke, it is a lifelong symbol of GUILT. 

Oh, so sorry, here is my post from 2012.

And what was the late Chancellor Schmidt thinking when he expressed his understanding about the depiction of Merkel in a Nazi uniform?

Judges in Strasbourg, I think and I am sure, you can do better.

The judges should not have mentioned that case and certainly not as supporting evidence.

Their view is further not corroborated as the case  file was withheld from 2013 till July 2017 by the court AND my court-appointed "lawyer". All advances for a retrial are being blocked by the rotten Munich court as it is absolutely clear that they would lose.

Bonus Trivia

Why is showing the Himmler picture illegal in Germany and the Hitler picture is NOT!?

Forbidden according to the ECHR

NOT forbidden when used in right context

NOT forbidden according to Hamburg prosecutor.

Hint: AfD! Riddle will be solved in next post.

Why/when is showing the Himmler picture illegal in Germany and the Hitler picture is NOT!?

Oh, and in order to be on the safe side in Mutti country without free speech, here is the disclaimer.