16 NIX v. GERMANY DECISION have any other meaning than that of Nazi ideology (compare and contrast the cases of Vajnai v. Hungary, no. 33629/06, §§ 52 et seq., ECHR 2008, and Fratanoló v. Hungary, no. 29459/10, § 25, 3 November 2011, concerning the use of the red star). It takes note of the fact that domestic courts have, on another occasion, held that showing a picture of Himmler in SS uniform in itself constituted the use of symbols of unconstitutional organisations within the meaning of Article 86a of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 33 above). 50. The applicant must have been aware of the pertinent provision and case-law of the domestic courts, not least because he had been convicted of the same offence for having published a picture of Angela Merkel in Nazi uniform with a swastika armband and a painted Hitler-moustache some six weeks before he published the blog post at issue in the present case (see paragraph 13 above). 51. The Court accepts that the applicant, by displaying the picture of Himmler in SS uniform with a swastika armband in his blog post, did not intend to spread totalitarian propaganda, to incite violence, or to utter hate speech, and that his expression had not resulted in intimidation. It acknowledges that there have been various press reports detailing complaints that children of persons receiving social welfare and children with a migrant background are discriminated against in school and by employment offices (see paragraph 11 above). The applicant, through his series of six blog posts (see paragraphs 4-10 above), may have intended to contribute to a debate of public interest. 52. Thus, the question arises whether the domestic courts would have been required to examine the blog post of 23 March 2014, which led to the applicant’s conviction, together with his other blog posts concerning the interaction between the employment office and his daughter. The Court observes that the post in question, which was the third on that matter, did not contain any reference or visible link to the applicant’s earlier posts (see paragraphs 4-8 and 10 above). It was not immediately understandable for a reader of the post that it was part, or meant to be part, of a series of posts that may have been intended to contribute to a public debate. The domestic courts cannot be faulted for having considered only the specific utterance that was evident to the reader, that is the picture of Himmler in SS uniform with a swastika armband, the quoted statement, and the text written underneath, when assessing the applicant’s criminal liability. 53. In the text of the blog post, which was addressed to the staff member of the employment office handling the file of the applicant’s daughter, the applicant criticised the fact that various queries he had made to the employment office had remained unanswered and that the authorities were not providing free meals to his daughter and were not paying for her commuting to school (see paragraph 8 above). Moreover, he criticised the employment office for not knowing the needs of children and thus hindering