ECHR declares, Marissa Mayer meme contravenes German Criminal Code Section 86a "Use of Symbols of Nazi Organizations" (Case 51482/18)

The law perverted! The law—and, in its wake, 
all the collective forces of the nation—the law, 
I say, not only diverted from its proper direction, 
but made to pursue one entirely contrary!

Frédéric Bastiat 

Hear ye, hear ye, hear ye. The European Court of Human Rights sees this Marissa Mayer meme NOT covered by Article 10 ECHR.

ECHR does not like the Marissa Mayer meme

And since we at the ECHR do not want to deal with such crap from low-life bloggers we will shred your shit in a year's time. Capisce! Because that's how Single-Judge-Decisions work.

"The Court shall not keep the file in its archives for more than one year from the date of this decision."

Meanwhile German prosecutors have their very own views.

So coincidentally and related the Hamburg prosecutor declared this Hitler image in BENTO (an online youth magazine of DER SPIEGEL) as NOT contravening Criminal Code Section 86a (File #: 7101 Js 742/17).

This Hitler image is fine because it is from DER SPIEGEL
which is the journalistic gold standard.

Likewise in rotten Munich Court. Munich prosecutor Tilmann finds this Merkel-Nazi image in the Munich fake news gazette 'MERKUR' A-OK.

Merkel-Nazi image works well with Munich Court. Double standards anyone?

Bonus trivia: The European Court of Justice has for the umpteenth time to decide about that piece of cloth worn on a head, aka head scarf. It's been called on from, where else, Germany. Good-golly.

ECHR covers Munich criminal civil servant Jürgen Sonneck operating under false name "C. Paucher" (Case 51482/18)

Tweets mit Sprecher der Bundesregierung über diesen von Polizei/Münchner Justiz gedeckten Behörden-Typen Jürgen Sonneck in den Abwasserkanälen der Anonymität hausierend

Come to think of it, a public employee (Beamter) from the Jobcenter Munich gets the fucking stupid idea to send an online criminal complaint @PolizeiMuenchen using a FALSE NAME. Here is the demented person, former co-CEO Jürgen Sonneck. Now @StadtMuenchen pic.twitter.com/5WCWwGM6cr

— Straussian Obfuscator (@ErebusSagace) November 30, 2018

The Jobcenter Munich's Useful Idiot Jürgen Sonneck was so sure the Munich Court/Police would cover his ass until he ran smack into the law of diminishing marginal utility.

— Straussian Obfuscator (@ErebusSagace) November 30, 2018

The computer of my Tibetan daughter who went to school at that time and needed it was DELIBERATELY DAMAGED by the rotten Munich Court. A bunch of lying judges and cunning, sophomoric prosecutors.

— Straussian Obfuscator (@ErebusSagace) November 30, 2018

It does not stop here. Two emails to Dr. Katharina Henschen, Head of your Public Relations in Berlin, stayed unanswered. Keeping things clandestine, a tried and tested historical brown tradition.

— Straussian Obfuscator (@ErebusSagace) November 30, 2018

This from @Spiegel Bento does not contravene Criminal Code 86a. pic.twitter.com/SolZF5EtGg

— Straussian Obfuscator (@ErebusSagace) November 30, 2018

This Merkel-Nazi pic is legal. You got to love the Joker Boyz in Karlsruhe. Was it Wehner or Ehmke who called them "the assholes in Karlsruhe"? pic.twitter.com/ZJ5aCIlA9u

— Straussian Obfuscator (@ErebusSagace) November 30, 2018

Is there more? You betcha, these criminal freaks from the Labor Agency Munich. Covered and protected as well by ... Well, you guessed it by now. Freaks demanded blog posts to be deleted, or pay € 10,000. (Bockes/Bechheim/Jäger) pic.twitter.com/mv7iETyH7r

— Straussian Obfuscator (@ErebusSagace) November 30, 2018

With your permission I have tagged this 'GermanMinistriesSocialNetworkBlockerNazis' as the @BMAS_Bund blocked me as well in 2017 as did socialist justice minister Kathy Barley recently. After all, ze Germans have a zing wiz monster compound words, I've been told. pic.twitter.com/ArT9Z7sXZA

— Straussian Obfuscator (@ErebusSagace) November 30, 2018

You Germans need a serious lesson in Free Speech. pic.twitter.com/VNbIRZM1Fb

— Straussian Obfuscator (@ErebusSagace) November 30, 2018

Lektion Nr. 6 für AG, LG und OLG München: Richterin Basslers verquere Auslassung ist typischer ignoratio elenchi

Gemeint ist dies: "Es ist bei dem Bild auch nicht erkennbar, dass sich der Angeklagte eindeutig gegen den Nationalsozialismus ausspricht".

Beispiel Godwin's law im unteren Bild.


Peirce's Theory of Signs

The sign

In one of his many definitions of a sign, Peirce writes:

I define a sign as anything which is so determined by something else, called its Object, and so determines an effect upon a person, which effect I call its interpretant, that the later is thereby mediately determined by the former. (EP2, 478)

What we see here is Peirce's basic claim that signs consist of three inter-related parts: a sign, an object, and an interpretant. For the sake of simplicity, we can think of the sign as the signifier, for example, a written word, an utterance, smoke as a sign for fire etc. The object, on the other hand, is best thought of as whatever is signified, for example, the object to which the written or uttered word attaches, or the fire signified by the smoke. The interpretant, the most innovative and distinctive feature of Peirce's account, is best thought of as the understanding that we have of the sign/object relation. The importance of the interpretant for Peirce is that signification is not a simple dyadic relationship between sign and object: a sign signifies only in being interpreted. This makes the interpretant central to the content of the sign, in that, the meaning of a sign is manifest in the interpretation that it generates in sign users. Things are, however, slightly more complex than this and we shall look at these three elements in more detail.

The Object

Just as with the sign, not every characteristic of the object is relevant to signification: only certain features of an object enable a sign to signify it. For Peirce, the relationship between the object of a sign and the sign that represents it is one of determination: the object determines the sign. Peirce's notion of determination is by no means clear and it is open to interpretation, but for our purposes, it is perhaps best understood as the placing of constraints or conditions on successful signification by the object, rather than the object causing or generating the sign. The idea is that the object imposes certain parameters that a sign must fall within if it is to represent that object. However, only certain characteristics of an object are relevant to this process of determination. To see this in terms of an example, consider again the case of the molehill.

The sign is the molehill, and the object of this sign is the mole. The mole determines the sign, in as much as, if the molehill is to succeed as a sign for the mole it must show the physical presence of the mole. If it fails to do this, it fails to be a sign of that object. Other signs for this object, apart from the molehill, might include the presence of mole droppings, or a particular pattern of ground subsidence on my lawns, but all such signs are constrained by the need to show the physical presence of the mole. Clearly, not everything about the mole is relevant to this constraining process: the mole might be a conventional black color or an albino, it might be male or female, it might be young or old. None of these features, however, are essential to the constraints placed upon the sign. Rather, the causal connection between it and the mole is the characteristic that it imposes upon its sign, and it is this connection that the sign must represent if it is to succeed in signifying the mole.

The Interpretant

Although there are many features of the interpretant that bear further comment, here we shall mention just two. First, although we have characterized the interpretant as the understanding we reach of some sign/object relation, it is perhaps more properly thought of as the translation or development of the original sign. The idea is that the interpretant provides a translation of the sign, allowing us a more complex understanding of the sign's object. Indeed, Liszka (1996) and Savan (1988) both emphasize the need to treat interpretants as translations, with Savan even suggesting Peirce should have called it the translatant (Savan 1988, 41). Second, just as with the sign/object relation, Peirce believes the sign/interpretant relation to be one of determination: the sign determines an interpretant. Further, this determination is not determination in any causal sense, rather, the sign determines an interpretant by using certain features of the way the sign signifies its object to generate and shape our understanding. So, the way that smoke generates or determines an interpretant sign of its object, fire, is by focusing our attention upon the physical connection between smoke and fire.

For Peirce, then, any instance of signification contains a sign-vehicle, an object and interpretant. Moreover, the object determines the sign by placing constraints which any sign must meet if it is to signify the object. Consequently, the sign signifies its object only in virtue of some of its features. Additionally, the sign determines an interpretant by focusing our understanding on certain features of the signifying relation between sign and object. This enables us to understand the object of the sign more fully.

Although this is a general picture of Peirce's ideas about sign structure, and certain features are more or less present, or given greater or lesser emphasis at various points in Peirce's development of his theory of signs, this triadic structure and the relation between the elements is present in all of Peirce's accounts. In what follows, we shall see three of Peirce's attempts at giving a full account of signs and signification, the corresponding sign typologies, look at the transitions between these accounts, and examine some of the issues that arise from them.

Sign-Vehicles

Recall that Peirce thought signs signify their objects not through all their features, but in virtue of some particular feature. By 1903, for reasons related to his work on phenomenology, Peirce thought the central features of sign-vehicles could be divided into three broad areas, and consequently, that signs could be classified accordingly. This division depends upon whether sign-vehicles signify in virtue of qualities, existential facts, or conventions and laws. Further, signs with these sign-vehicles are classified as qualisigns, sinsigns, and legisigns respectively.

Examples of signs whose sign-vehicle relies upon a quality are difficult to imagine, but a particularly clear example, used by David Savan, is this:

[…] I use a color chip to identify the color of some paint I want to buy. The color chip is perhaps made of cardboard, rectangular, resting on a wooden table etc., etc. But it is only the color of the chip that is essential to it as a sign of the color of the paint. (Savan 1988, 20)

There are many elements to the colored chip as a sign, but it is only its color that matters to its ability to signify. Any sign whose sign-vehicle relies, as with this example, on simple abstracted qualities is called a qualisign.

An example of a sign whose sign-vehicle uses existential facts is smoke as a sign for fire; the causal relation between the fire and smoke allows the smoke to act as a signifier. Other cases are the molehill example used earlier, and temperature as a sign for a fever. Any sign whose signvehicle relies upon existential connections with its object is named, by Peirce, a sinsign.

And finally, the third kind of sign is one whose crucial signifying element is primarily due to convention, habit or law. Typical examples would be traffic lights as sign of priority, and the signifying capability of words; these sign-vehicles signify in virtue of the conventions surrounding their use. Peirce calls signs whose sign-vehicles function in this way legisigns.

Interpretants

As with the sign-vehicle and the object, Peirce thought we could classify signs in terms of their relation with their interpretant. Again, he identifies three categories according to which feature of the relationship with its object a sign uses in generating an interpretant. Further, as with the classification of the sign in terms of the sign-vehicle and the object, Peirce identifies qualities, existential facts, or conventional features as the basis for classifying the sign in terms of its interpretant. ...

Godwin's law

Das Sign ist Godwin's law und das Hakenkreuz als Verbildlichung. Das Object sind die Leute im Bild. Die Leute im Bild bestimmen das Sign insofern, als sie für die Umsetzung des "Gesetzes" Voraussetzung sind. Die Leute verbildlichen die Diskutanten, den Diskussionsverlauf. Der Interpretant ist das Verständnis, das wir von der Zeichen-Objekt-Beziehung erreichen.

Richterin Basslers interessiert verquere Auslassung "es ist bei dem Bild auch nicht erkennbar, dass sich der Angeklagte eindeutig gegen den Nationalsozialismus ausspricht" wäre auch bei diesem Beispiel wie beim Marissa Mayer Meme ein typischer ignoratio elenchi. Simpler und überzeugender kann man es auch beeindruckende und hintertriebene Idiotie nennen.


Memes as Visual Rhetoric

The visual rhetoric approach combines elements of the semiotic and discursive approaches to analyze the persuasive elements of visual texts. Visual rhetoric understands visual texts as created to construct meaning (Foss, 2004, p. 304). Rhetoric is also considered to be persuasive. Blair (2004) notes that visual arguments have a unique ability to draw viewers into the argument’s construction via the viewer’s cognitive role in completing “visual enthymemes” to fill in the unstated premise (p. 59). Rhetoric relies heavily on stylistic devices—such as metaphor—for persuasive purposes (Kenney, 2002, p. 57). Edwards (2004) examines the manner in which iconic images become a type of metaphor for national sentiment; these images can be recontextualized for “symbolic association ... by metaphor or allegory” (p. 189). By considering memes as discourse and analyzing the semiotic elements in memes, researchers can examine how memes operate as rhetoric. A comparison of the semiotic, discursive and rhetorical approaches can be seen in Table 1.

Memes are more than internet humor; research shows them to function by appropriation and resistance to dominant media messages. By examining how memes can operate in subversive and representational ways, this paper offers scholars a framework for the study of memes as symbolic, persuasive texts. Just as the application of visual rhetoric expands general rhetorical theory by acknowledging “the role of the visual in our world” (Foss, 2004, p. 310), examining memes as a form of rhetoric can expand understanding of the way memes function in a participatory media culture.

Subversive Memes: Internet Memes as a Form of Visual Rhetoric
Heidi E. Huntington - Colorado State University


Memes in a Digital World: Reconciling with a Conceptual Troublemaker

Limor Shifman
Department of Communication and Journalism, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, 91905, Israel


I suggest looking at Internet memes not as single ideas or formulas that propagated well, but as groups of content items that were created with awareness of each other and share common characteristics. Going back to Dawkins’ original idea—that memes are units of imitation—I find it useful to isolate three dimensions of cultural items that people can potentially imitate: content, form, and stance.

The first dimension relates mainly to the content of a specific text, referencing to both the ideas and the ideologies conveyed by it. The second dimension relates to form: This is the physical incarnation of the message, perceived through our senses. It includes both visual/audible dimensions specific to certain texts, as well as more complex genre-related patterns organizing them (such as lip-synch or animation). While ideas and their expression have been widely discussed in relation to the meme concept, the third—communication-related dimension—is presented here for the first time. This dimension—which relates to the information memes convey about their own communication—is labeled here as stance. Expanding Englebertson’s (2007) definitions, I use ‘‘stance’’ to depict the ways in which addressers position themselves in relation to the text, its linguistic codes, the addressees, and other potential speakers. Like form and content, stance is potentially memetic; when re-creating a text, users can decide to imitate a certain position that they find appealing or use an utterly different discursive orientation.

Since I use stance in this context as a very broad category, I wish to clarify it by breaking it into three subdimensions, drawing on concepts from discourse and media studies: (1) participation structures -who is entitled to participate and how, as conceptualized by Phillips (1972), (2) keying -- the tone and style of communication, as defined by Goffman (1974) and further developed by Blum-Kulka et al. (2004), and (3) communicative functions, as conceptualized by Roman Jakobson (1960). Jakobson identified six fundamental functions of human communication, concisely presented as follows: (a) Referential communication, which is oriented toward the context, or the ‘‘outside world’’; (b) emotive, oriented toward the addresser and his/her emotions; (c) conative, oriented toward the addressee and available paths of actions (e.g. imperatives); (d) phatic, which serves to establish, prolong, or discontinue communication; (e) metalingual, which is used to establish mutual agreement on the code (for example, a definition); and (f) poetic, focusing on the aesthetic or artistic beauty of the construction of the message itself.

This analytic framework, consistent with the three memetic dimensions (content, form, and stance),
as well as the three subdimensions of the latter dimension (participation structures, keying, and communicative functions) will be developed and applied in the following section to the analysis of a successful YouTube meme, featuring one somewhat upset fan. ...

Explanation in Table 1 page 369.

Nachhilfeunterricht Nr. 5 für AG, LG und OLG München: Internet Memes und Glaube an Grüne Männchen vom Mars

What makes a meme successful? Selection criteria for cultural evolution

Francis HEYLIGHEN - CLEA, Free University of Brussels

To be assimilated, the presented meme must be respectively noticed, understood and accepted by the host. Noticing requires that the meme vehicle be sufficiently salient to attract the host's attention. Understanding means that the host recognizes the meme as something that can be represented in his or her cognitive system. The mind is not a blank slate on which any idea can be impressed. To be understood, a new idea or phenomenon must connect to cognitive structures that are already available to the individual. Finally, a host that has understood a new idea must also be willing to believe it or to take it serious. For example, although you are likely to understand the proposition that your car was built by little green men from Mars, you are unlikely to accept that proposition without very strong evidence. Therefore, you will in general not memorize it, and the meme will not manage to infect you.

Echauffierend! Überall Nazi Propaganda. Wie wärs z.B. mit

Elon Musk: ‘Dang, turns out even Hitler was shorting Tesla stock’

Dang, turns out even Hitler was shorting Tesla stock … https://t.co/RLM1VQ5O3K

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) August 5, 2018

Es war schon schlimmer. Hitler hasst Rebecca Blacks Song 'Friday'.

Similarly, Deacon (1999) argues:

A meme is a sign: some physical thing which, by virtue of some distinctive feature, can be recruited by an interpretive process within a larger system as re-presenting something else, conveying information into that system and reorganising it with respect to that something else.

(Internet memes as internet signs: A semiotic view of digital culture, Sara Cannizzaro, Lincoln School of Film and Media)


Oder im damaligen aktuellen politischen Bezug in Canada. Selbst wenn man sich von Hitler distanziert, geht das nicht gut bei manchen.

From Hitler memes to 9/11 truthers, Ontario NDP candidate controversies grow as party enters spotlight

As a general rule, any time someone running for public office has to clarify that they don't support Adolf Hitler, it's not going well.

At a news conference attended by B’nai Brith Canada this morning, @GilaMartow and @ToddSmithPC stated that a candidate for the @OntarioNDP has been “caught praising Adolf Hitler online.” #onpoli pic.twitter.com/wlvBrdiMNK

— B'nai Brith Canada (@bnaibrithcanada) May 25, 2018

Schlussendlich J. Habermas:

Political Communication in Media Society: Does Democracy Still Enjoy an Epistemic Dimension? The Impact of Normative Theory on Empirical Research

Abstract

I first compare the deliberative to the liberal and the republican models of democracy, and consider possible references to empirical research and then examine what empirical evidence there is for the assumption that political deliberation develops a truth‐tracking potential. The main parts of the paper serve to dispel prima facie doubts about the empirical content and the applicability of the communication model of deliberative politics. It moreover highlights 2 critical conditions: mediated political communication in the public sphere can facilitate deliberative legitimation processes in complex societies only if a self‐regulating media system gains independence from its social environments and if anonymous audiences grant a feedback between an informed elite discourse and a responsive civil society.

"Likewise, litigants do not stop going to court, irrespective of what law professors observe and pronounce about the indeterminacy of laws and the unpredictability of legal decisions. The rule of law and the practice of adjudication would break down, were participants not to act on the premise that they receive fair treatment and that a reasonable verdict is passed down."

Hört jemand zu in den Katakomben der Nymphenburger Strasse?! Insbesondere dieser immer noch vorherrschende braune Miefgestank im ersten Stock gleich beim Treppenaufgang.

"“Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off."

Nachhilfeunterricht Nr. 4 für AG, LG und OLG München: Das Semiotische Dreieck für diese Provinz-Juristen

"Es ist bei dem Bild auch nicht erkennbar, dass sich der Angeklagte eindeutig gegen den Nationalsozialismus ausspricht."

LG München Richterin Baßler zu diesem Meme unten

. . . . . . . .

Wir wenden uns aus den intellektuellen Niederungen der Nymphenburger Strasse in der Provinz zur Einstimmung zu ein wenig Anspruchsvollerem, um dann etwas näher auf besagtes Meme einzugehen:

THE AFFECT AND EFFECT OF INTERNET MEMES: ASSESSING PERCEPTIONS AND INFLUENCE OF ONLINE USER-GENERATED POLITICAL DISCOURSE AS MEDIA
Submitted by Heidi E. Huntington - Department of Journalism and Media Communication

"Memes may be understood as representational discourse by considering them through the lens of visual rhetoric, which analyze visual artifacts as persuasive messages. Visual rhetoric expands on traditional rhetorical theory of spoken discourse (Foss, 2004) and understands such rhetorical artifacts to be created by individuals to construct meaning (Foss, 2004). Traditionally, rhetoric is “considered to be public, contextual, and contingent” (Kenney, 2002, p. 54), and these characteristics are present in memes. Memes’ visual nature lends itself to several specific rhetorical practices. These include such techniques as: The use of iconic images and intertextual references to multiple texts to create visual enthymemes, in which viewers are drawn into the construction of the argument by cognitively making a connection to fill in the image’s unstated premise (Blair, 2004); the use of tropes such as metaphor or typed personas (Lewis, 2012) across memes also fill an argumentative need; and dialogism through the rhetoric of irritation caused by the juxtaposition of incongruous images the brain must pause to understand (Stroupe, 2004).

Visual communication, including rhetoric and discourse, has been influential to politics and the study of political communication for some time, especially from rhetorical and persuasive perspectives. Abraham (2009) examined editorial cartoons and argued that their visual qualities offer deep reflection on and can orient viewers to social issues. Abraham noted that editorial cartoons’ humor, far from being simple, derives from their ability to deconstruct complex ideas using symbolic images (p. 121). Neuberger and Krcmar (2008) argued that editorial cartoons are politically and ideologically charged, and experimentally demonstrated attitude change in participants who viewed such cartoons. Kjeldsen (2000) described how visual metaphor in a political advertisement could make a host of arguments about a candidate’s fitness for office.

Meme forbidden in Germany.

Contravenes Criminal Code 86a

Hier noch einmal die Sequenzen von Daniel Ginsberg aus dem vorigen Post.

Object - Sign - Interpretant

Das 'Object' in dem Meme ist Heimarbeit (Work from Home)

Das 'Sign' ist Nein (das ambivalente 'Nine' als Verballhornung als auch als Alludierung auf den nine-to-five job)

Der 'Interpretant' ist Marissa Mayer als Hitler (siehe Tineye), natürlich mit Swastika (das tausendfach bekannte Hitler Meme), denn es gilt eine Message zu unterstreichen.

Wie Daniel Ginsberg es ausführt: "The way it works is that the interpretant-object relation mirrors the sign-object relation."

"Es funktioniert so, dass die Interpretant-Objekt-Beziehung die Zeichen-Objekt-Beziehung widerspiegelt."

Daniel Ginsberg weiter: "The versatility of these memes arises because, combined with object labeling, they can capture an entire semiotic relation in one image."

Und nun kommts: "As long as "It's semiotics" doesn't become the new "Time for some game theory," it's all good." MAW, solange nicht wieder Nonsense kommt.

Alles klar auf den billigen intellektuellen Rängen im Kangaroo Court München? Die lächerliche Münchner Polizei bleibt da ganz draussen. Hoffnungsloser intellektueller Horizont. Mir fiel bei denen immer der Begriff 'Intellektuelle Legasthenie' ein und siehe da, nachdem ich durch Zufall gegoogelt habe, ob es da was gibt ... und da ist es.

. . . . . . . . .

Richard Dawkins on the internet's hijacking of the word 'meme

"As for me, I’d rather spread memes than genes anyway."

Um den Zirkel zu schliessen, bietet sich an, so zu schliessen wie begonnen, mit durchtriebener Dummheit aus dem Kangaroo Court München:

"Die festgestellte Verwendung und Gestaltung der verfahrensgegenständlichen Bilder unter Verwendung von Symbolen der NS-Gewaltherrschaft lässt vielmehr vielgestaltige Interpretationen zu, auch eine Interpretation, die gerade nicht als Distanzierung anzusehen ist."

OStA Weiß - OLG München

In diesem Sinne, Gute Nacht.

Ob diese Geistesbolzen überhaupt so etwas wie ein Verkehrsschild verstanden haben???

Nachhilfeunterricht Nr. 2 für AG, LG und OLG München: Keep Calm and Pussy on the Chainwax

Meme forbidden in Germany.

Contravenes allegedly Criminal Code 86a

In der Gerichtsverhandlung fragte Richter Bassler: "Warum haben Sie dieses Bild verwendet?" Sie hätte keine dümmere Frage stellen können. Sie hätte genauso gut bitten können, einen Witz erklärt zu haben.

Hier eine Erklärung für diese Deutschen wie Humor entsteht:

KEEP CALM AND STUDY MEMES 
by
ASHLEY DAINAS
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts
Department of Cognitive Science Cognitive Linguistics
CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY

"Many researchers and thinkers have noted that two key points of humor in general seem to be the mixing of disparate and usually incompatible frames (Koestler, 1964; Attardo, 2001) and the resolution of the conflict between the contradictory frames by a new and humorous emergent idea or image that is only possible in the context of our incompatible frames (Lewis, 1989)."

Hier fängt der Spass richtig an:

"Coulson (in press) points out that part of the appeal in various kinds of jokes is the challenge of solving the puzzle. This is just as true in internet memes where a large part of the pleasure and humor derived from the meme comes from figuring out what any given meme is referencing."

Gott sei Dank gibt es die Universität Berkeley UC Berkeley.

"UC Berkeley has always been at the forefront of innovation. They’ve never been an institution to shy away from doing the difficult thing in order to be at the cutting edge of education, so it will come to the shock of no one that this past Monday, UC Berkeley announced that a new department of meme studies will begin operations in the fall of 2018."

Hier das Transcript des Interviews:

The Clog: Thank you for meeting with me, professor M.L.

Professor M.L.: I would actually prefer if you referred to me by my full name: Meme Lord.

Full interview here as it is copyrighted. It's about memes becoming a foundation upon which adolescents are building their relationships. An abstract representation of our thoughts and feelings. Constructing, and in some cases deconstructing, seemingly simple images is key to understand the nuances of adolescent communication. Perhaps memes will be how big corporations do most of their advertising. Memes as influencers of our decisions.


Verständlicherweise liegt dies alles ausserhalb des Horizonts eines bayerischen Richters und sophomorischen Staatsanwälten. Umso mehr, wenn es darum geht, einen verdammten Blogger zum Schweigen zu bringen. Nichts hindert einen Münchner Richter oder Ankläger an krassen Lügen. Sie sind eine Anti-free speech Gang. Was ist das Bundesverfassungsgericht? Dieser Jester Equipe aus Karlsruhe kümmert sich einen Piss, ausser wenn es um Prominente geht. Wie ein Wetterkanalreporter. Oder wenn du ein Kopftuch bist. Dann haben die Clowns aus Karlsruhe zwei verschiedene Entscheidungen.

"Conceptual integration or blending occurs in a wide range of mental phenomena such as metaphors and, particularly of interest to the subject of this paper, humor. Researchers have shown that conceptual blending plays a vital role in various types of humor including political cartoons (Coulson, in press) and spontaneous humor found in talk radio (Coulson, 2005). Many researchers and thinkers have noted that two key points of humor in general seem to be the mixing of disparate and usually incompatible frames (Koestler, 1964; Attardo, 2001) and the resolution of the conflict between the contradictory frames by a new and humorous emergent idea or image that is only possible in the context of our incompatible frames (Lewis, 1989). Both of these aspects of humorous blends hold true for internet memes, which tend to have two inputs, the original meme being referenced (such as Keep Calm and Carry On) and a second input that can be anything from another meme to a TV show to word play. The meme’s creator must combine these inputs in a way such that both inputs can derived from the blend (the parody itself) such that the joke and/or reference being made can be understood."

Was die in München wohl zu diesem Meme sagen?

"Of course, internet memes are not new. As discussed in the introduction, there are many internet meme-like objects (such as joke cycles) that exist outside of and predate the internet. So far as these objects and memes are similar to each other, it should be possible to apply the broader research on humor and in-group/out-group status to internet memes. “Keep Calm and Carry On” is a fairly tame meme for which I studied tame parodies."

 "There are many theories that attempt to explain humor. One such theory, the Semantic Theory of Humor (Raskin 1986, 1985) is an attempt to apply a semantic theory to humor. The theory suggests that humor happens when two opposite scripts overlap."

Problem ist, Deutsche haben absolut keinen Humor.

"Coulson (in press) points out that part of the appeal in various kinds of jokes is the challenge of solving the puzzle. This is just as true in internet memes where a large part of the pleasure and humor derived from the meme comes from figuring out what any given meme is referencing."

aus:

KEEP CALM AND STUDY MEMES
by
ASHLEY DAINAS
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts
Department of Cognitive Science Cognitive Linguistics
CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY

"Professionals in public relations and advertising, too, have embraced Internet memes. In viral marketing, there are examples of memes that were purposely designed to create publicity for products or services. Finally, political campaigning increasingly attempts to create Internet memes to shape opinion. They are supposed to create an image of trendiness but often interest in the content is for purposes of trivia or frivolity rather than for information."

Das Fraunhofer Institut fragt die Knaller am Münchner Gericht:

"Given the public interest in Internet memes, it is sobering to see that many aspects of the phenomenon are still poorly understood."

Insights into Internet Memes
Christian Bauckhage
Fraunhofer IAIS Bonn, Germany

Das geht natürlich alles vorbei an den Provinzlern im Münchner Gericht. Und die blöde Frage von Richterin Bassler "Warum haben Sie das Meme benutzt?" Keine Ahnung, warum hat die so eine fette Kiste und lässt mir einen verlogenen Beschluss vorlegen?

Keep calm and put the Pussy on the Chainwax.

Nachhilfeunterricht Nr. 1 für AG, LG und OLG München: Internet-Memes

Meme forbidden in Germany.

Contravenes allegedly Criminal Code 86a

"The view that humour is generated through the combination of different frames or input spaces can be traced back to Koestler’s (1964, 51, quoted in Coulson 2002) quotation presented below.

The sudden bisociation of an idea or event with two habitually incompatible matrices will produce a comic effect, provided that the narrative, the semantic pipeline, carries the right kind of emotional tension. When the pipe is punctured, and our expectations are fooled, the now redundant tension gushes out in laughter, or is spilled in the gentler form of the sou-rire. 

 Commenting on this hypothesis, Coulson (2002) emphasises that, in Koestler’s view, humour includes “the unlikely combination of related structures”. In addition, Brône and Feyaerts (2003) regard Hofstadter and Gabora (1989) as the predecessors of conceptual integration theory in humour because their use of the term frame blend implies combining different frames."

aus: 

Is a Picture Really Worth a Thousand Political Words? Political Internet Memes and Conceptual Blending.

"As already mentioned, it is believed (Coulson 2002, Marín-Arrese 2003) that the incongruity produced in the blend is the key element in the creation of humour. In addition, it can also be claimed that this is a characteristic of humorous blends only. However, what all blends have in common are backward projections from the blend into input spaces (Fauconnier and Turner 2002). It is believed that this cognitive operation is a decisive element in the resolution of humour. In that sense, Marín-Arrese (2003) claims that “[t]he problem solving or resolution of the incongruity is realised by projecting backward to these input spaces ...”. Therefore, to resolve the incongruity, the reader has to unpack the blend, that is, to reconstruct the whole integration network. As Fauconnier and Turner (2002, 333) claim, the reader first recognises the incongruity which then prompts him to reconstruct the input spaces. 

Furthermore, Coulson (2002) finds that the emergent structure in the blend can promote the construals in the input spaces by projecting from the blended space to input spaces. In a series of papers, Coulson (1996, 2002, 2005, 2006) discusses jokes and political cartoons providing evidence that humorous blends, with bizarre concepts arising in the blended space, can promote certain aspects of reality. “Political cartoons and rhetorically motivated discourse prompt us to construct blended cognitive models and, in effective cases of rhetoric, desired inferences are analogically projected from blatantly unrealistic blended cognitive models to the real-world target domain” (Coulson 2006, 197-8). Therefore, backward projections from the blended space to input spaces reinforce construals in input spaces in accordance with the new structure created in the blend. 

In that sense, it can be claimed that unrealistic scenarios arising in the blended space often have argumentative potential. In a series of papers Coulson and associates (Coulson 2006, Coulson and Oakley 2006, Coulson and Pascual 2006, Oakley and Coulson 2008) discuss blending and its rhetorical potential. These papers find that conceptual integration as a basic cognitive mechanism can be used as a rhetorical tool influencing the audience to change the reality and even act upon it. Furthermore, analysing blending in persuasive discourse, Coulson and Pascual (2006) find that conceptual integration of two scenarios in a single absurd scenario in the blended space presents an effective argumentative tactic. Although such blends are not constructed in order to be entertaining, creative, and humorous but in order to convince the addressee to change the current state of affairs or to persuade the addressee to change his or her convictions, what these blends and humorous blends have in common are unrealistic scenarios created in the blended space."

Alles klar im Kangaroo Court München?!

ECtHR appeal - Criminal complaint about Internet meme, submitted by public employee & Useful Idiot Jurgen Sonneck using a false name. Covered up by Munich police and Munich Court

On Oct. 29, 2018 my complaint went to the ECtHR. The complaint is based on the ass-hatted idea of the Munich public employee (in German 'Beamter') Jurgen Sonneck back in May 2015 to send a criminal complaint to police via the police's email contact form. The ingenious added twist was he used the false name "C. Paucher" to hide his identity, or so he thought. Police quickly established there is no one in the whole of Bavaria breathing with that name.

Why did this Useful Idiot of a government labor agency choose the rather bland and uninspiring name "C. Paucher" when other options would be readily available? And with a much better ring. Like the sophisticated sounding Art Vandelay of the highly reputed export/import company or the esteemed Dr Martin van Nostrand from the Hoffermandhoffneir Clinic in Belgium. Jurgen probably felt unqualified to use these names for his, well, rapidly diminishing state of head hair.

Jurgen Sonneck alias "C. Paucher" on Facebook

Though Munich police had the IP address they did not bother to follow up on that. Why? A fucking shitface of a blogger, that is me, had to be investigated and hopefully shut down. The rotten Munich Court also did not feel any inclination to follow my presented damning circumstantial evidence about this rotten fucktard Jurgen Sonneck.

What was the criminal complaint about? Glad you ask. An internet meme. This one here:

Meme forbidden in Germany.
Contravenes allegedly Criminal Code 86a

This meme contravenes Criminal Code 86a according to the Munich Court. BTW, this for example does not.

Does NOT contravene Criminal Code 86a according to prosecutor Tilmann.

And neither does this.

Does NOT contravene Criminal Code 86a according to prosecutor 

You are a little confused now? You should not, this is Germany, there is no free speech and, for heaven's sake, do not blog. Unless it is about tulips or buttermilk, perhaps vegan food. Apart from that, stay quiet because when it comes to free speech Germany adheres to a tried and trusted history. It is gene-based.

Jurgen Sonneck, who at that time was second-in-charge at the Munich Jobcenter, was displeased about this blog post from November 2014. In May 2015, mind you! The complaint was obviously planned well ahead. Jurgen felt so sure nobody would discover him. Balding Jurgen saw hate speech in this post. Of course it was a red herring that the Munich police quickly grabbed.

The text reads: "Would you like to agree with Marissa from Yahoo?

Look, dear Miss Martina Musati, we will clarify such images with Nazi symbols before the Supreme Court. The Jobcenter will never curtail my right to express my opinion!"

After this short intro here the essential parts of my complaint to the ECtHR (a complete complaint form comprises of altogether 13 pages and you have just three pages to describe your complaint which is not a lot considering what went on in court. I can tell you, it was mind-boggling). I hope for acceptance. I know about 50 to 60 ECtHR judgements by now and if I am not completely mistaken, this complaint would be a novelty.

For easier reading text below (slightly edited Google translate).

Page 5/13

E. Presentation of the facts

56.

Criminal conviction for using marks of an unconstitutional organization in a meme:

From 1990 to Oct. 18, 2005 the complainant lived in Nepal among the local community with a multitude of different ethnic groups. After his return to Germany, the complainant became self-employed in the home decor sector after unsuccessful job search. Since the Jobcenter deducts all income over € 30.00 (!) immediately as income, building up a business was impossible. As a top up the complainant therefore received Hartz 4.

After this recent criminal complaint submitted by the former deputy managing director of the Jobcenter Munich Jürgen Sonneck using a false name, the complainant had to fold his business. His disputes with the Jobcenter Munich began in 2012 immediately with the start of his self-employment. Since the end of 2012, the complainant and his daughter have been massively attacked by the Jobcenter Munich and the Labor Agency with three criminal charges that have interfered with his right to free speech because he started this blog to inform about his experiences with the Jobcenter.

At around 8:45 am on October 28, 2015, two plainclothes policemen and a policewoman appeared and demanded admission on presentation of a Judgmental Decree (Annex 3) dated Oct. 8, 2015, which was not signed by the judge. A male police officer immediately rushed to the door to the complainant's daughter's room and threw it open without knocking. The daughter of the complainant, however, was already in school. During the trial, the complainant was physically searched and it was obvious that the female police officer was supposed to body-search his daughter. The apartment was photographed and also the house from the outside. All IT equipment including router was confiscated, because a blogger had to be rendered incapable of any access to the Internet. This was the second computer confiscation after 2013 (then for 25 months without financial compensation!). This as well after a criminal complaint by the Munich labor office. Although the confiscation of the smartphone was not mentioned in the Judgmental Decree, this too was confiscated (Annex 5). The same was undoubtedly planned with his daughter's smartphone.

Inspection of court files in April 2016 revealed that an online criminal complaint had been sent to the police Munich Kriminalfachdezernat 4 on May 7, 2015 against the applicant stating a false name "C. Paucher" (Annex 4, p. 2). Conspicuous, chronological evidence incl. IP-address immediately narrowed the circle of potential perpetrators to someone from the Jobcenter Munich (supplemental Annex 2 'Jürgen Sonneck circumstantial evidence'). The email complaint sees hatespeech in a blog post (Annex 1) published in November 2014 (!) which also shows a meme of the former CEO of Yahoo Marissa Mayer (Annex 2). It is a photoshopped picture of M. Mayer, dressed in a Nazi uniform with swastika and an applied text "Work from Home? Nine!". The picture was shown here: http://www.classicforwards.com/memes/marissa-mayer-work-home-meme/ and can now be seen on Pinterest (Annex 2). It was downloaded in this form by the complainant in 2014.

The Munich courts obviously did not understand the nature of memes. According to Dictionary.com, a meme is "1. an element of a culture or system of behaviour passed from one individual to another by imitation or other non-genetic means. 2. an image, video, piece of text, etc., typically humorous in nature, that is copied and spread rapidly by Internet users, often with slight variations." According to Wikipedia, an" Internet meme, "is commonly known as just a meme, ... an activity, concept, catchphrase, or piece of media that spreads, often as mimicry or for humorous purposes, from person to person via the Internet." Dawkins defined it in his book 'The Selfish Gene' as" the basic unit of cultural transmission, or imitation. 'Vice' states: "You can not make a meme. The meme part is the phenomenon in which it is placed". One of the most famous memes currently is "Is this a pigeon?", although a butterfly is shown. 'Vox' explains it, inter alia: "But "Is it a pigeon? "and its cousins may serve as a counter to the American Chopper meme because they allow the meme creator to frame an issue completely through the static image they're

Page 6/13

57.

presenting. And, crucially, the "misunderstanding" at the center of this meme can be deliberate, accidental, disingenuous, or ironic. That allows us to comment on all manner of social trends and flaws in ourselves and others."

The M. Mayer meme refers to a decision by the Yahoo CEO to end the hitherto existing possibility of working from home. "Nine" stands for a 'No' (German 'Nein') or the nine to five job. The word 'Nine' was also used in reference to the typical German stubborn and strict style. The Nazi uniform is an obvious vehicle for visual exaggeration and has nothing to do with propaganda. Yahoo is an American media company and not known as a proponent of National Socialism. The text of the blog post is about freedom of expression and courts in a democratic state. National Socialism never had anything to do with freedom of expression and women never wore such a Nazi uniform. It is an obvious juxtaposition. To denounce the blog post as hatespeech or as the police report says as part of a "vendetta" (page 3), is abstruse and malicious.

The police did not investigate the IP address, but sniffed extensively on the blog (see police report Annex 4). Policeman Mr Carstens explained during the trial before the LG Munich on Feb. 15, 2017, IP address investigation is too cumbersome. This onesided investigation violates § 160 para. 2 StPO and in particular § 163b StPO measures to establish identity. A letter to Judge Pabst dated April 26, 2016 (Annex 7) to issue a court order to release the name and address of the holder of the IP address 217.253.91.237, citing § 100g Code of Criminal Procedure, remained unanswered. As a result, the complainant was prevented from the opportunity to question the sender of that email pursuant to Art. 6 para. 3 d ECHR. The police report is clearly written in a partisan manner.

The computer of his daughter was returned in a deliberately (!) damaged condition (clear scratches in the lower left quarter of the screen and a broken trackpad) by the Munich Court. Since it was unusable, the complainant sent it to the Federal Ministry f. Work and Social Affairs BMAS in January 2017. The MacBook was confiscated even though the daughter needed it for school. The then attorney of the complainant in a trial before the Munich court on May 6, 2015 which resulted in the ECHR Case 35285/16 warned in the presence of the daughter of the complainant literally that if the blog should be continued, "they will destroy you" (in German "machen die Sie fertig"). He was referring to the Munich Court.

In January 2017, the complainant sent a complaint to the Police President of Munich (Annex 15) about the confiscation of the smartphone WITHOUT a judicial decision. Senior prosecutor Tilmann from the Munich Higher Regional Court referred in her reply of 6/1 2017 (Annex 16) to an opinion with file # 120 Js 119571/17. The complainant has no correspondence with this file number.

On April 21, 2016, the Public Prosecutor's Office in Munich filed an indictment of the complainant for use of marks of National Socialist organizations in two cases and insulting Judge Pabst (Annex 6). On June 22, 2016, AG München sentenced the complainant to a total fine of 290 daily rates of € 10, - equal to € 2,900.00 (Annex 10). The complainant had earlier filed an objection against the judge (Annex 8), which was rejected (Annex 9). Judge Birkhofer-Hoffmann showed again the same aggressive behavior as in a hearing a year earlier and expressed in the final pleading her displeasure about the request for her dismissal from the case for bias. Furthermore, Judge Birkhofer-Hoffmann steadfastly refused to allow the daughter of the complainant to attend the trial as a witness. It was not until he became very loud - his daughter later confirmed that she had clearly heard this outside - that she was admitted. The highlight was the Judge's statement, ECtHR decisions do not apply to Germany, only German law.

The LG Munich Court, represented for the third time by Judge Bassler, overturned the ruling on February 15, 2017 (Annex 13) and decided on a fine of 50 daily rates of € 10.00 for the publication of the Marissa Mayer meme. However, the complainant had expressed his justified concerns for bias of Judge Bassler at the outset of the court hearing. He saw her impartiality as questionable based on past experience as well as relying on the decision of the ECtHR in the case 'FERRANTELLI AND SANTANGELO v. ITALY (Application No 19874/92) and Sentences 58 to 60 of the decision pertaining a "double circumstance". In this particular case a triple circumstance. The meeting was suspended for approximately 40 minutes and continued after the decision of Judge Hansen (Annex 12) was issued. The content of the decision is a lie, because according to a decision of the BGH of February 8, 2017 (1 StR 493/16) there existed, at least temporarily, no allocation of duties plan at the LG Munich I for the jury for the years 2012, 2014 and 2015! It seems strange when a defendant who was reported to police in all three cases by labor agencies

Page 7/13

58.

has the "luck" of getting the same judge assigned in every case stretching over a time period of four years.

None of the witnesses requested by the complainant were summoned (Annex 11)! The complainant had expressly called as witness for interrogation Jürgen Sonneck being a strong suspect. This once again curtailed the applicant's right to equality of arms, an integral part of the Convention. His allegation of unilateral investigations (see § 160 (2) and § 163 STPO), as well as references to cases of the ECtHR such as Rachdad v. France (complaint no. 71846/01) where the duty to seek witnesses was determined was not mentioned in the judgment.

The assertion of the court in the judgment under 'V. Legal appraisal '(Annex 13), "it is also not recognizable in the picture that the defendant distances himself clearly from National Socialism," lacks any rationality and shows that the court has not understood the function and essence of a meme and neither wanted to understand. Furthermore, in the 'Legal Appraisal' the court cites the 'taboo' of NS symbols and refers to Fischer, Commentary on the Criminal Code, on § 86 a. Paragraph 2 a. Judge Bassler deliberately left out important remarks by Thomas Fischer. 2a (Fischer's 63rd edition) states: "On the other hand, if the offense serves to exclude unconstitutional efforts in the run-up to organized propaganda (prohibition of propaganda), then any use, even indifferent or neutral content, should be excluded from the facts. Conversely, the enforcement of a meaningless taboo would not allow content-based exceptions. ("Legitimate purposes" in particular the "dispute", see paragraph III). See also Chapter 2 b Fischer: "Even according to its wording, § 86a follows the taboo concept if one does not interpret the terms" use "and" spread "in an intentional sense. A taboo of signs or words abstracting from the context of utterance and action can hardly be considered legitimate under the conditions of a society, and legitimacy gains from the formal openness of communication."

If the court is really that much concerned about the taboo and the confrontation of a habituation effect, the plethora of Nazi images in established (partly coercively financed) German media remains a mystery to the complainant. On the occasion of the Austrian swastika-shaped cutlet case, the public prosecutor's office in Mainz in May 2016 correctly ruled as follows: "According to the facts presented, there is no initial suspicion of punishable conduct (section 152 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.) The content of this article and its distribution do not comply with any penalty. ... ".

On April 6, 2017, the complainant appealed at the Audit Office (Annex 14). He complained in particular that the AG and LG Munich did not meet the requirements of a court according to Art. 6 ECHR and criticized the unilateral investigation against him, although the police and prosecutors knew the IP address of the email sender. On Sept. 13, 2017, the Munich Attorney General's Office wrote an application to reject the revision (Annex 17). In point II 1 a, it cited a lack of procedural complaints that complied with the requirements of section 344 (2) sentence 2. These, however, had been made in his appeal in 1.1.1. and 1.1.2., also 1.1.5. to 1.1.8. and 2.1.1. to 2.1.10.

On Sept. 23, 2017, the complainant took a stand (Annex 18) and rebuked OSTA Weiß, because the lies that so far had been put forward by judges over the years became a little too much to bear for him. The Munich judiciary obviously deems Hartz 4 recipients as intellectually retarded and to who anything can be served. The  complainant is stunned how a studied lawyer such as OStA Weiss is able to write the following circular sentence with regard to the meme: "The stated use and design of the procedural images using symbols of Nazi tyranny rather allows a variety of interpretations, even an interpretation that is just not to be regarded as a distancing" and to expect this to be viewed as a proper argument. As a result, the Higher Regional Court of Munich decided on January 10, 2018 (Annex 19) to reject the appeal against the judgment of the Landgericht München I as unfounded.

On February 1, 2018, the applicant filed a constitutional complaint within the deadline (Annex 20). It was not accepted for decision on June 8, 2018 (Annex 21). Prior on Jan. 26, 2016, the daughter of the complainant had in vain requested an interim order for the release of the confiscated IT equipment to the Federal Constitutional Court (Extra Appendix 1) (File # 2 BvQ 7/17). Her laptop was essential for the school. The Federal Constitutional Court rejected the application on March 4, 2016.


F. Statement of alleged infringement (s) of the Convention and / or Protocols and justification of the complaint

Page 8/13

59.

Asserted article

Art. 10 (1) ECHR (freedom of expression and freedom of the press)

Explanation

The complainant was convicted under § 86a para. 1 no. 1 of the Criminal Code (StGB). The norm of § 86a StGB is directed against the use and distribution of National Socialist marks as well as marks of other political parties and associations, as far as they have been declared unconstitutional or have been banned.

The norm protects the prevailing opinion in Germany as an abstract danger offense both the democratic constitutional state before a revival of unconstitutional organizations and before their "trivialisation" by getting used to certain characteristics as well as the political peace and thus also the reputation of the Federal Republic of Germany Abroad. The enforceability of the intended protection takes place in German jurisdiction by a tabooing of the signs in the form of a comprehensive banishment from the public, so that the subjective relationship of the signs user is basically irrelevant and also a negative or neutral use of the facts of § 86a StGB met. Such a far-reaching interpretation of the standard at the expense of the rights under Article 10 (1) of the ECHR is not "necessary in a democratic society" and contrary to Convention law, as the intended protection of legal interests can also be achieved by criminalizing only a content-related identification with the content of the sign. According to the Convention, a condemnation may only be made if the use according to the specific circumstances can be seen as a confession of the perpetrator to the content-related goals of the organization. The legal interest of political peace is only in danger if the use of the forbidden symbols takes place confessionally. Only in this way can the fact that the scope of protection protects not only the content of the statement but also its form be taken into account. Likewise, only in this way can the interest of the democratic process, for which the fundamental rights of communication have constitutive significance, be sufficiently taken into account (prohibition of propaganda instead of taboo).

The Marissa Mayer Meme referred to the critical economic and business situation of Yahoo. The comedy of the meme lies among others in that IT companies are the real proponents of work from home. The Nazi uniform visually underscores the CEO's ultimate demand for unconditional focus on the company's economic well-being. Any insinuation of another context or even propaganda would be abstruse.

The district court has justified its decision merely by the fact that " ... in the picture it is also not recognizable that the defendant expresses himself clearly against national socialism" and "it also does not result from the context of the use why the image of the CEO of Yahoo in a Nazi uniform is shown". The courts have not understood the nature of memes, as they are not topic-specific, as in this case on the occasion of the decision to end home work at Yahoo, but partly used in wide cross-thematic contexts on the Internet (see meme 'Is this a pigeon'). The Nazi uniform functions in the picture as a double visual exclamation mark for the "Nine!". The court's question about the function of the Nazi uniform in Marissa Mayer equals a request to explain a joke. As Wikipedia explains, a meme acts "as mime or for humorous purposes". In addition, women in the Nazi era did not wear such uniforms.

The court's reference to "exclusion of certain symbols from the permitted forms of communication (taboo) ... to prevent a habituation effect" deliberately omits important passages in Thomas Fischer: "Due to the special requirements of the fundamental right of freedom of expression, however, exceptions are required if the behavior, despite the external use of the signs, does not undermine the purpose of the protection". (see BGH 25, 30, 32 f., 25, 133, 136 f., 51, 244 [= NJW 07, 1602; note Schroeder JZ 07, 851; Hörnle NStZ 07, See below 18.) This statement is compatible with the constitution (BVerfG NJW O6, 3052). "Similarly, the statements of Fischer under 2 b See also decision of the public prosecutor Mainz in the swastika-cutlet case in the ZdF.

Page 9/13

60.

Asserted article

Art. 6 para. 3 d ECHR (violation of the right of confrontation)
and
Art. 8 ECHR (right to respect for private and family life)

Explanation

On April 26, 2016, the applicant sent an application to Judge Pabst at the Munich District Court (Annex 14) to issue a court order to release the name and address of the holder of the IP address 217.253.91.237 citing § 100g of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He listed eight conspicuous clues that clearly pointed to a staff member of the Jobcenter. The refusal to answer the application at all, proves the partiality of the Munich District Court. The unanswered letter was followed by two others unsuccessfully on May 3, 2016 and May 13, 2016.

Although a letter from January 2017 to the LG Munich (Annex 11) mentioned among other witnesses for interrogation explicitly "J. Sonneck (as a strong suspect of sending the email under a false name based on conspicuous circumstantial evidence), Jobcenter Munich, Orleansstraße 50, 81667 Munich" to be summoned, nobody was summoned. A sharp questioning of both J. Sonneck and the then Managing Director Martina Musati could have provided information about this perfidious undertaking. Policeman Carstens replied to the question of why he had not pursued the identity behind the IP address as being too cumbersome. In Germany bloggers are guilty ex ante. The courts did not make the slightest attempt to investigate the striking and chronologically convincing evidence listed by the complainant. The hastily completed transfer of Jurgen Sonneck in July 2017 from the Munich Jobcenter to the Munich Office for Education and Sports after sharp, clear and published communications by the complainant with federal ministries in Berlin and the police chief of Munich is revealing.

Subject Art 8 ECHR

A confiscation of the smartphone was not mentioned in the Judicial Decision of October 8, 2015. Nevertheless, it was confiscated by the police and it can also be assumed, the same was planned with the smartphone of his daughter, as a policewoman was present. Despite this unlawfulness, Judge Birkhofer-Hoffmann showed a keen interest in the results of the evaluation of phone data. For Hartz 4 recipients no rights seem to apply.

In a decision of February 4, 2005 - 2 BvR 308/04, the Federal Constitutional Court stated in paragraph 23 to 25 clear limits for a confiscation. On Nov. 22, 2016, the applicant filed a criminal complaint against police officer Carstens at the Munich Public Prosecutor's Office. Furthermore, he sent two Pdf to the police chief of Munich, which was allegedly handed to the prosecutor by the police according to their letter of April 26, 2017. The complainant has no correspondence with the file # 120 Js 119571/17, as was claimed by senior prosecutor Tilmann in the letter of June 1,2017 and again confirmed on Oct. 19, 2017. Everything was swept under the carpet.

----------

The resulting damage / loss of use for the IT equipment is € 1,595.00 plus replacement of the daughter's MacBook Pro.


Page 10/13

Indication of the appeals lodged and the date of the last decision

1. Judgment of the local court AG Munich of June 22, 2016, file number 821 Ds 112 Js 168454/15

2. Appeal of the complainant of June 26, 2016

3. Judgment of the Landgericht München I dated February 23, 2017, file number 18 Ns 112 Js 168454/15

4. The appellant's appeal dated April 6, 2017

5. Order of the Higher Regional Court Munich of January 10, 2018, file number 5 OLG 13 Ss 364/17 (2)

6. Constitutional complaint of the complainant dated February 1, 2018, file number 1 BvR 246/18

7. Order of the Federal Constitutional Court of June 8, 2018, file number 1 BvR 246/18


Page 12/13

I. List of enclosed documents


1. Annex 1 Blog Post of November 25, 2014 p. 1

2. Annex 2 Original Memes from the Internet p. 2

3. Annex 3 Confiscation Decision of Munich AG, Ref. ER II GS - 6711/15 of October 8, 2015 p. 3

4. Annex 4 Police Report of June 24, 2015 p. 6

5. Annex 5, search warrant, Az. BY 8644-00804 15/7 of October 28, 2015 p. 11

6. Annex 6 Indictment Munich Public Prosecutor's Office I, Az. 112 Js 168454/15, April 21, 2016 p. 14

7. Annex 7 Letter to AG München dated April 26, 2016 requesting a court order reg. name/address of holder of IP address p. 18

8. Annex 8 Motion for bias of May 21, 2016 against Judge Birkhofer-Hoffmann of AG München p. 20

9. Annex 9 Decision of June. 22, 2016 on motion for bias against Judge Birkhofer-Hoffmann p. 23

10. Annex 10 Resolution of AG München, Ref. 821 Ds 112 Js 168454/15 dated June 22, 2016 p. 25

11. Annex 11 Letter to LG Munich dated January 7, 2017 witnesses to be summoned p. 33

12. Annex 12 February 15, 2017 decision on motion of bias against Judge Bassler of LG Munich p. 35

13. Annex 13 Decision of the LG Munich, Ref. 18 Ns 112 Js 168454/15 of February 15, 2017 p. 38

14. Annex 14 Appeals of April 6, 2017 p. 48

15. Annex 15 Acknowledgment of receipt dated April 26, 2017 by Police HQ Munich reg. confiscation of smartphone and unilateral investigations p. 71

16. Annex 16 Letter from prosecutor Tilmann, Az. GA 313E-23/2017 on criminal charges against police for confiscation of smartphone and unilateral investigations of June 1, 2017 p. 72

17. Annex 17 Letter from Attorney General OLG Munich dated September 13, 2017 to reject the appeal p. 73

18. Annex 18 Respondent's reply to Public Prosecutor's Office of OLG Munich, September 23, 2017 p. 77

19. Annex 19 Decision of OLG Munich, Ref. 5 OLG 13 Ss 364/17 (2) of January 10, 2018 p. 81

20. Annex 20 Constitutional complaint p. 83

21. Annex 21 Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court, Ref. 1 BvR 246/18 of June 8, 2018 P. 110

22. Extra Annex 1 Urgent application with Federal Constitutional Court of Jan. 26, 2016 reg. confiscation of computer of daughter who was in preparation for final school examinations p. 112

23. Extra Annex 2 Jürgen Sonneck circumstantial evidence p. 115

Hitler addresses ECHR. Debunks Germany’s “criminal sanctioning of use of Nazi symbols” as virtue signalling deflecting from him having been a true Keynesian

This is in reference to the Case 35285/16 and the ECHR's decision in April 2018. There is among others the salient paragraph 47. Fortunately, someone with first hand knowledge and expertise was only too eager to chip in and get a couple of misconceptions straight.

So here is the ECHR live:

  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. 

Hitler would chuckle but hey, here he is in person, more or less. Let's listen to Dear Leader back then:

'Gents, lady! With all due respect, we, the Nazis, did not gain power via pictures or symbols. There were economical reasons, the nation was being slighted and financially damaged by the Versailles Treaty. Capice. Or in today's terms: 'It's the economy, stupid!'

I did not become top honcho or Hero Number One as they say in India of a country by strutting around with a Gucci label on my handbag. Not only was I a gifted painter, I was a genius in applied economics. Did you gents never appreciate the fact that I was a Keynesian?? Yeah, take that.

"For today’s generation, Hitler is the most hated man in history, and his regime the archetype of political evil. This view does not extend to his economic policies, however. Far from it. They are embraced by governments all around the world. The Glenview State Bank of Chicago, for example, recently praised Hitler’s economics in its monthly newsletter. In doing so, the bank discovered the hazards of praising Keynesian policies in the wrong context."

FYI gents & lady in Strasbourg, this was the situation in our neighbor country Austria.

"As we can see, the budget deficit was radically cut right down until 1936, and was virtually eliminated, since by October 1936 the budget deficit was about 0.5% of GDP (Berger 2003: 90).

Some of the austerity policies included:

(1) the elimination of the works council in 1934;

(2) a series of cuts to welfare, and

(3) slashing of unemployment benefits to the point where only 50% of the unemployed in 1936 received benefits (Obinger 2018: 86).

How did the economy perform under this austerity?

The Austrian economy was awful."

Now watch the difference courtesy me, the Big Kahuna.

"While in Austria, the clerical fascists pursued austerity and wage and price deflation from 1934 to 1937, in Germany the National Socialist government of Hitler implemented a series of economic interventions that involved large government deficits, direct public works programs, and rearmament. This program was undoubtedly Keynesian in its fiscal effects, despite some modern attempts to deny this like Tooze (2008) (on the simulative nature of Germany’s deficits and policies after 1933, see Cohn 1992; Fremdling and Stäglin 2015; Overy 1996). The fact that German military spending was higher by 1935 than some historians have thought does not change the reality that military Keynesianism is still Keynesianism. It is clear that German policy down to 1936 was a mix of military and civilian Keynesian spending.

So how did Austrian unemployment compare to unemployment in Germany?

While Austrian unemployment remained high, German unemployment fell rapidly.

Popular support for the Austro-fascist regime collapsed by 1938 given the economic disasters and high unemployment, and when Hitler annexed Austria in March 1938 there was no doubt a great deal of support for the Anschluss within Austria."

Genius that I am I went ballistic Keynes and boy, was I successful except for some minor hiccups along the road which finally convinced me to put an end to my great life.

"What were those economic policies? He suspended the gold standard, embarked on huge public works programs like Autobahns, protected industry from foreign competition, expanded credit, instituted jobs programs, bullied the private sector on prices and production decisions, vastly expanded the military, enforced capital controls, instituted family planning, penalized smoking, brought about national health care and unemployment insurance, imposed education standards, and eventually ran huge deficits. The Nazi interventionist program was essential to the regime’s rejection of the market economy and its embrace of socialism in one country.

Such programs remain widely praised today, even given their failures. They are features of every “capitalist” democracy. Keynes himself admired the Nazi economic program, writing in the foreword to the German edition to the General Theory: “[T]he theory of output as a whole, which is what the following book purports to provide, is much more easily adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state, than is the theory of production and distribution of a given output produced under the conditions of free competition and a large measure of laissez-faire.”

You may want to visualize my genius. Well here it is, the Chart of Fiscal Stimulus Beauty courtesy that Brit Ralph Musgrave.

I was working magic

I hear that some ridiculously clad nutball from India had written two letters to me which the British bastards had intercepted. Proves that I had fans the world over. Very well possible he fell for our use of the swastika, I never cared about trademarks and copyright. Honestly, I could have used a violet lily or a pink thong as our party emblem and would still have "won the hearts and minds of my people". Just watch the present political climate the world over.

You may also want to notice that I embrace "a broadly Malthusian or Spencerian vision of populations of humans destined to fight each other: Each nation or race will breed too many people to share the planet".

As for my German countrymen's Criminal Code 86a, gents & lady, that 's virtue signalling. Pure, simple and pathetic virtue signalling.'

Not yet convinced? Here are some very good posts:

Macro-economic policy and votes in the thirties: Germany (and The Netherlands) during the Great Depression

Macroeconomics in Germany: The forgotten lesson of Hjalmar Schacht

Nazi Germany’s Economic Recovery-Schacht’s Triumph and Keynes’ Vindication

The best at last:

Hjalmar Schacht, Mefo Bills and the Restoration of the German Economy 1933-1939