6 NIX v. GERMANY DECISION obvious that the applicant rejected Nazism. The court concluded that the applicant had used the picture as an eye-catching device, which was exactly what the provision sanctioning the use of symbols of unconstitutional organisations was intended to prevent, as it was meant to pre-empt anyone becoming used to certain symbols by banning them from all means of communication (the so-called “communicative taboo” – see paragraph 31 below). 18. However, the Regional Court considered that an objective observer could not, without additional knowledge, have noticed that the symbol on the front pocket of Himmler’s uniform was the badge of the Nazi party and featured a swastika. This display of the badge and swastika, therefore, did not give rise to criminal sanctions under Article 86a of the Criminal Code. 19. On 14 June 2015 the applicant, without being represented by a lawyer, lodged an appeal on points of law. He alleged that provisions relating to the proceedings and to substantive law had not been complied with. He did not elaborate on the former. With regard to the latter, he argued that Nazi symbols were widely shown all over the German media without any distancing from those symbols or Nazi ideology. In the light of that, it was unrealistic that sanctioning him for showing a picture of Himmler wearing an armband with a swastika could pre-empt anyone from becoming used to such images. Moreover, the finding that he had not clearly rejected Nazism was absurd: the blog post had to be examined in its entirety, taking into account its context and the circumstances in which it was written. The fact that the applicant rejected Nazi ideology was evident from the criticism contained in the text of the post, from the picture and quotation, and from the content of his blog as a whole, which featured many posts on economic and social matters (including the applicant’s dealings with the employment office), and showed no affinity to Nazism. As a blogger, he was entitled to the same freedom of expression as a journalist, and his blog post had contributed to the discussion of a topic of general public interest that was widely debated in the media and mentioned by various stakeholders – that is to say the correlation between a migrant background and academic performance and institutional discrimination in Germany against children with a migrant background, not least in the light of Germany’s economic interest in having a cheap labour force. 20. On 22 June 2015 the applicant gave an oral statement regarding the grounds for his appeal on points of law before the Regional Court’s Registry in order that they would be formally recorded, in substance repeating his submission of 14 June 2015. 21. In their response of 8 July 2015, the prosecution authorities noted that the applicant had complied with the formal requirements for lodging his appeal on points of law in so far as he had sought to have the Regional Court’s judgment quashed on account of a violation of a provision of substantive law, but that he had failed to comply with the formal