Sorry, but just no. Just because someone abuses a service, it doesn't mean that it "serves no legitimate purpose".
You see, people are using Tor to buy drugs and to share child porn. Does that make tor a tool "that serves no legitimate purpose other than enabling people to cause harm"?
I am a happy user of cock.li, because it's one of the only few email providers, which don't require my phone number (unlike gmail, outlook etc). I don't mind that they also offer domains joke domains such as "hitler.rocks", since I know what a joke is.
Not judging one way or the other, just saying that it's incredibly risky to make jokes like this, especially in the current climate, where the narrative and emotional response matters more than facts and rationality.
Last year, the government director Dr. Trips-Hebert explained the facts and the law to prevent misunderstandings like yours in the future. [1]
Let me translate the key section of his letter: "Section 86a of the Criminal Code is located in the third title of the first section of the Special Part of the Criminal Code.
The offenses of this title criminalize acts that constitute a 'threat to the democratic constitutional state.'"
The protected interests of the provision are political peace, the free democratic basic order
democratic basic order, the idea of international understanding, and Germany's reputation abroad.
The ban serves [...] to prevent the revival of the banned organizations or the aspirations they pursue [...]."
"Hitler.rocks" is not falling under this, since it is not a "threat to the democratic constitutional state". That's also why satire magazines like "Titanic" are allowed to publicly show Swastikas on their front page. [2]
A domain about hitler minerals [3] which does not aspire the revival of banned organizations such as the NSDAP, (there isn't any nazi glorifying content on the website), does not reflect a threat to Germany's democratic state. At least I hope so :)
Can you point to the specific subsection of §86a StGB that would apply here?
I feel like the law would be especially difficult to apply in this context given that the domain names offered by cock.li are obviously picked for the sole purpose of causing offense, not to promote an unconstitutional organization.
You see, people are using Tor to buy drugs and to share child porn. Does that make tor a tool "that serves no legitimate purpose other than enabling people to cause harm"?
I am a happy user of cock.li, because it's one of the only few email providers, which don't require my phone number (unlike gmail, outlook etc). I don't mind that they also offer domains joke domains such as "hitler.rocks", since I know what a joke is.