Law suit against German Labor Ministry BMAS for blocking on Twitter

This is a condensed excerpt from my law suit against the German Labor Ministry's blocking on Twitter.

I hereby lodge a complaint against the

Federal Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs represented by Minister Hubertus Heil, Wilhelmstraße 49, 10117 Berlin (hereinafter BMAS)

for blocking on Twitter and thereby committing a

Violation of Article 5 (1) sentence 1 GG as well as in particular Article 3 (1) and (3) GG and in extension §§ 1 (1), 5 (1) and 7 (1) IFG.

Reason

I. In 2017 or 2018, the Twitter account @ErebusSagace was blocked by the neo-liberal BMAS. As a user of this social network account, I was thus deprived of my constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of expression as well as freedom of information pursuant to Art. 5 (1) sentence 1 GG and in particular Art. 3 (1) and (3) GG.

In the paper of the German Bundestag "Access to public relations of the police in social media Twitter", © 2018 German Bundestag WD 3 - 3000 - 044/18 it says:

2. Blocking users

If the police blocks specific posts or users on their short message account, this fundamentally and depending on the case design interferes with the following basic rights:

• The freedom of expression of the user, insofar as he can no longer comment on contributions from the police (Article 5 (1) sentence 1 GG);
• freedom of information of the user insofar as he can no longer view the contributions of the police or only under difficult conditions (Article 5 (1) sentence 1 GG);
• the right to equal participation in public services and facilities (Article 5 (1) sentence 1 GG, Article 3 (1) GG)

Without doubt this also applies to federal ministries. These are obviously of the opinion that Hartz IV recipients are dispensable social accessories. In a fax dated Jan. 14, 2019 (see attachment) I asked the neoliberal Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs for information about the reasons for blocking on Twitter and the official guidelines of the Federal Government for blockages on social networks in general. I set the deadline February 8, 2019, after several pertinent communications, as can be seen from the fax, remained unanswered in a typically German way. This request, too, remained unanswered in well-known German fashion.

In any case, the BMAS received an e-mail notification on the blog post "German Labor Minister Nahles, reign in your criminals" June 1, 2017. This post dealt with the criminal civil servant Manfred Jäger (coercion) and the completely retarded criminal civil servant and useful idiot Jürgen Sonneck (slander), formerly Jobcenter Munich and operating under the wrong name 'C. Paucher'. This was covered up by Munich police and the Munich Court despite glaring circumstantial evidence.
...

For the sake of completeness and in support of the facts presented here, the article "GERMANY IS WORLD CHAMPION! WHEN BLOCKING TWITTER ACCOUNTS" deals with a shocking but not surprising scenario according to which Germany is even ahead of Turkey in the ranking of opinion oppressors.
...

V. Last but not least, the plaintiff would like to point to the country with a First Amendment, which assures a much broader right to free speech than Germany's Article 5 GG. There, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled on May 23, 2018 in the case Knight First Amendment Institute v. United States. Trump, No. 1: 17-cv-05205 (S.D.N.Y.):

“This case requires us to consider whether a public official may, consistent with the First Amendment, “block” a person from his Twitter account in response to the political views that person has expressed, and whether the analysis differs because that public official is the President of the United States. The answer to both questions is no.”

US lawyer Eugene Volokh's article "Blocking Twitter Users from @RealDonald Trump Violates First Amendment" explains the judge's reasoning in particular in the paragraphs 1 and 3:

[1.] The virtual space provided by Twitter for replying to the President's Tweets is a "designated public forum" -- a space controlled (even if not owned) by the government that is generally open for public speech to fellow members of the public, and in which the First Amendment forbids viewpoint discrimination. The Tweets themselves aren't a forum, because they are the President's own speech; but the space for public replies is a forum. The court's concern is that replies are a valuable means for the repliers to speak to fellow members of the public. The court recognizes that there's no right to speak to the President in a way that the President is obliged to read; the President remains free, for instance, to use Twitter's "mute" function, which would keep him from seeing the user's replies when he reviews his own feed.

[3.] Though blocked users remain free to read the President's Tweets, and can even comment on them through various workarounds (such as by creating new accounts), the various workarounds "require [the individual plaintiffs] to take more steps than non-blocked, signed-in users to view the President's tweets," which "delay[s] their ability to respond to @realDonaldTrump tweets." This is not a vast burden, the court concluded, but "the First Amendment recognizes, and protects against, even de minimis harms."