Via Remix news,
The case of German pensioner Stefan Niehoff became a major international story after police raided his home for calling Robert Habeck an “idiot” while Habeck was serving as Germany’s economy minister at the time. Now that Niehoff has been convicted — for sepearte offenses – it has become clear how far the German media has gone to create the perception that Niehoff is a Nazi to smear his name, when the exact opposite was true all along.
Elon Musk tweeted about the case. The Economist included the incident in a long list of items showing Germany was walking all over free speech, and Niehoff was publicly outspoken over what happened to him.
Niehoff suffered a house raid early in the morning at his home in Burgpreppach, while his disabled daughter was home, all because Habeck filed a complaint against him for Niehoff calling him an “idiot” in an internet post.
The case looked exceedingly bad, so the German establishment went into damage control.
Numerous news outlets started publishing articles that the main focus of the investigation against Niehoff — the “idiot” comment — had quietly been sidelined. Now, the courts were focusing on “unconstitutional” symbols that Niehoff shared. In other words, after the Niehoff case blew up in their faces, they needed to find an ad hoc justification after the fact to justify their witch hunt against him.
In Germany, any kind of “unconstitutional symbol” basically means you were sharing swastikas or other symbols associated with the Nazi regime. Most people suddenly thought Niehoff was some kind pro-Nazi activist.
The reality is that he was comparing the left-liberal traffic light government, which was in power at the time, to the era of National Socialism. In other words, he was criticizing the Nazis, not praising them.
Now that the trial ended last week, it has come to light that these charges were related nearly entirely to retweets — specifically, five retweets and one actual tweet. Given what was actually in those tweets, it is clear that the German media lied through omission, leaving out the exact context of how these tweets were used.
In one case, he retweeted Bavaria’s Green Group leader Katharina Schulze in a Nazi salute with her arm raised upwards. It contained the line: “The Green Empire.”
In another post, he retweeted a photo of Hitler shaking hands with a Church official, which he used to criticize the positions of the church — again, not a post in support of Nazism.
In the end, he was found guilty for four out of six tweets and now has to pay a fine, with the judge’s reasoning that it was not immediately clear he had used the meme of Schulze in a negative manner rather than a “glorifying” manner, according to reporting from Janina Lionello.
Amazingly, the media did not end their misleading headlines with a conviction.
Instead, as German media outlet NIUS reports, major newspapers all ran headlines that largely suggested Niehoff was convicted for sharing pro-Nazi content.
“Pensioner convicted of Hitler salute on the Internet,” wrote Bild newspaper, while FAZ wrote: “64-year-old receives fine for X posts with ‘Hitler salute’.“ The Süddeutsche Zeitung wrote: “Pensioner sentenced to a fine for Hitler salute posts on X.”
Double standard
Following the verdict, free speech advocates, lawyers, and organizations reacted with outrage. Many pointed out that the left routinely uses “unconstitutional symbols” to attack its critics.
“‘Our democracy’ is now also being defended on ‘our internet,’ and the greatest threat to ‘our internet’ are citizens like Stefan Niehoff who criticize the Green Party. This is then ‘use of symbols of unconstitutional organizations’ and costs €825 plus legal costs. While below, you also see the use of symbols of unconstitutional organizations, which is legitimate because it is directed not against the Greens, but against the right. This is how ‘our democracy’ works, and anyone who doesn’t understand that is a Nazi,” Pauline Voss wrote on X.
During the trial, the judge in the case stated: “I realize that our internet is full of this kind of thing, and we can’t control it. The internet is not a lawless space. We will continue to pursue such cases.”
Lawyer Marcus Pretzell responded to the judge by also pointing to the media’s extensive use of swastikas on their magazine covers. “This is an abstract endangerment offense, dear Bamberg Public Prosecutor’s Office. We don’t want this to become normalized! Editorial offices are not a lawless space!”
Other constitutional experts chimed in, noting that the judge’s ruling was a twisted departure from what many expect to be a society founded on free speech and the acceptance of satire.
“Sections 86 and 86a of the German Criminal Code (especially the use of symbols of banned organizations) lead to sometimes grotesque results in criminal law practice, which, in my view, are untenable in a free state. For example, expressions of opinion that are clearly critical or satirical in nature and reveal that the author is distancing themselves from the symbolism by criticizing a current issue are classified as punishable use of Nazi symbolism. It is evident that such convictions violate the fundamental right to freedom of expression. The criminal law norms urgently require revision, specifically one that narrows the scope of criminal liability,” wrote Josef Franz Lindner, who writes on constitutional law.
It is also worth mentioning that Alice Weidel was graphically portrayed with a swastika at a Carnival event. The image of Weidel was circulated across the entire country, all the way from newspapers to the main public news television stations. The organizers behind the float were never charged with “unconstitutional symbols.”
Notably, Niehoff had little power and reach, while these magazine covers and news outlets have infinitely more reach. The court still had to make an example out of Niehoff.
Ultimately, only the tiniest minority of people are actually promoting any kind of Nazi ideology with their political memes, and in Germany, the number of people doing this is almost zero, as it is illegal to openly promote National Socialism or any type of symbol associated with it.
Niehoff is far from the only victim of this double standard, though. During the coronavirus crisis, for example, one American journalist, C.J. Hopkins, learned the hard way that only the left can use these symbols to attack opponents. He was convicted for putting a swastika in a surgical mask on the cover of a book in order to criticize Covid-19 policy. He details his insane journey through Germany’s legal system, which resulted in his conviction despite numerous appeals.
It remains clear that Germany’s establishment will continue to punish political opponents through the courts while turning a blind eye when their opponents are being attacked.
Read more here…
