The Strasbourg Court Establishes Standards on Blocking Access to Websites. Do German ministries listen?


Federal Ministry of Family Affairs
Federal Ministry for Labour and Social Affairs
Federal Employment Agency
The uncommunicative (maulfaule) State Minister for Culture and the Media

Social Court Munich
Bavarian Social Court

Aug. 29, 2020

Subject: The Strasbourg Court Establishes Standards on Blocking Access to Websites
(related: Germany’s Blocking policy on Social Network Twitter)

Ladies, gents,

The ongoing burlesque and saga presented by your ministries’ and courts’ civil servants has been and still is bordering on the ludicrous and reached embarrassing proportions. Not surprisingly, entertainment reached mind-boggling heights just prior to this weekend’s handling of the ‘anti-coronavirus’ rally. However, such are the Germans when being confronted with free speech vis-à-vis their historical tradition. Or as Oscar Wilde mused: ‘There is nothing like race, is there?’

May I draw your attention to the recent ruling of the European Court Of Human Rights CASE OF OOO FLAVUS AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (Applications nos. 12468/15 and 2 others) from June 23, 2020. The abstract reads as follows:

Article 10 • Freedom to receive and impart information • Unjustified wholesale blocking of opposition online media outlets in breach of requirement to specify offending content • Prior restraint on publications in absence of judicial decision on the illegality of the impugned content • Wholesale blocking of access to an entire website being an extreme measure comparable to banning a newspaper or television station • Blocking access to an entire website having practical effect of extending scope of blocking order far beyond illegal content originally targeted • Domestic law lacking safeguards against excessive and arbitrary effects of blocking measures • Notification and involvement of website owners in blocking proceedings not required by law • Blocking measures not sanctioned by court or other independent adjudicatory body • No prior assessment of impact and immediate enforcement of the blocking measure depriving interested parties of the opportunity to appeal • Domestic courts’ failure to perform a Convention-compliant review considering less intrusive means
Article 13 in conjunction with Article 10 • Effective remedy • Failure of courts to consider the substance of grievance or to examine lawfulness or proportionality of effects of blocking order

Strasbourg Observers concluded by stating:

Taken together with the previous judgments of Ahmet Yıldırım v. Turkey, Cengiz and Others v. Turkey, and Kablis v. Russia, the Strasbourg Court has now provided national governments with a comprehensive set of standards on drafting Convention-compliant internet laws. With that said, considering the tightening grip of the authorities on the internet and social media platforms in countries like Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Russia, it will not be a surprise if the Court is ‘provided with more opportunities’ to further refine its standards as the internet technologies continue to transform societies.

The last time I checked a map, Berlin, Munich and Nuremberg appeared to be cities in Germany. Quelle surprise about the similarities.

Having said that, I demand that your illegal blocking of our Twitter Account @ErebusSagace is immediately lifted by @BMAS_Bund, @BMFSFJ and @Bundesagentur.

It is also seriously suggested the presidents of the Social Court Munich, Dr. Edith Mente, and the Bavarian Social Court’s, Günther Kolbe (sadly no Dr. title!), reflect on their democratic disposition.

Furthermore, I trust you are aware of the very recent ruling “The right to obtain information based on the IFG also applies to Twitter direct messages” and I am looking forward to enter into communication with the BMFSFJ’s Missus Dr. Julia Kasselt in matters related.

Lastly, I would be remiss not to remind you Germans to train your criminal civil servants better. Jürgen Sonneck, aka C. Paucher, is a fucking moron. That’s not how you handle communication with police using a false name. Hell, your criminals need to get more professional.

Why – do they shut Me out of Heaven?
Did I sing – too loud?
But – I can say a little”Minor”
Timid as a Bird!

Wouldn’t the Angels try me
Just – once – more Just
But don’t – shut the door’!

Oh, If I – were the Gentleman
In the ‘White Robe”
And they – were the little Hand – that knocked –
Could – I – forbid?

Emily Dickinson

Di vos incolumes custodiant