Politician Forces German Wikipedia Off the Net 569
Stephan Schulz writes "A German Member of parliament for a left-wing party, Lutz Heilmann, has obtained a preliminary injunction against the local chapter of the Wikimedia foundation, Wikimedia Deutschland e.V., forbidding the forwarding of the popular http://wikipedia.de to the proper http://de.wikipedia.org. Apparently Heilmann is not happy with the fact that his Wikipedia article (English version) contains information on his work for the former GDR Stasi, the much-hated internal secret service. Wikimedia Germany displays a page explaining the situation, and has announced that it will file an objection to get the injunction lifted. The German Wikipedia has more than 800,000 pages, and is hosted, like all Wikimedia projects, by the Florida-based Wikimedia Foundation, and hence beyond the effective reach of at least German politicians and judges."
domain name (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:How can this happen? (Score:5, Interesting)
Encyclopedia Dramatica? (Score:3, Interesting)
With a name only 1 letter away from LULZ he's prime fodder for Encyclopedia Dramatica.
Ironically, the article about him [encycloped...matica.com] says
There is currently no text in this page, you can search for this page title in other pages or edit this page.
IT'S CENSORSHIP! It's censorship I say!
Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand (Score:2, Interesting)
Switzerland still exists.
But they are starting to ban pornography on ALL mobile phones here (wonder how that works on internet enabled smartphones) and of course violent video games.
It's all downhill from here. The hippies are winning :)
Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand (Score:3, Interesting)
I hate to nitpick, but it actually would translate to "National." The party name was the Nationalsozialisten, which translates, obviously, as "national socialists."
Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand (Score:2, Interesting)
*sigh* Conveniently forgetting that I did NOT, in fact, claim the similarity was only in name ...
Care to answer the "policy" part too ? There is more of a match between nazi's and socialists than merely the name.
More than enough people "switched" from socialism to nazism. That's because it wasn't a switch at all.
More than enough policies by the nazi's are still pushed by lefties today. That's because they ARE "progressive" policies.
Nazism, like socialism today, was a youth movement that played amongst young people and on university campuses, with MUCH less support in the general population.
The leader of the nazi party, adolf hitler, was, like socialists today, hailed as a "man of peace", a man of "social justice" all over the world, europe, america even the fucking middle east, right up until the second year of world war 2. He was even nominated for a nobel peace prize. He even had the leader of the islamic world visit him to help rally muslims into the SS (you see the muslims had no problems with that whole killing Jews thing). ...
Germany during the late 30's and 40's was a fascist regime, as was Italy. Yes, Hitler's rhetoric talked of social justice, but that was what he did to get himself into power
People keep saying that about every last lefty leader. Today Chavez, Kim Joung Il. Or even the child-killer called Che Guevara.
The problem is not that those people have bad intentions. The problem is that lefty politics enable them. It's really simple : lefty politics -> everybody money for nothing -> nobody works anymore (gradual process), except for ideological reasons, in the army or whatever movement they have -> nothing gets produced anymore -> not even food -> politicians "divide" the food (and everything else) amongst the "most worthy" (themselves) -> millions die
Fascim = Socialism = a central state controlling the economy, the people, everything
And yes, that's not to say that socialism in a state, which is called communism, doesn't differ in a few details from "national-socialism". But the basic principle for running the state is the same.
Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand (Score:3, Interesting)
No, the USSR did shit Hitler only dreamed about. At least Hitler let the white middle class mostly alone. In the USSR, you weren't safe no matter who you were until at least '57.
Lefty politics necessitate totalitarianism.
You can keep saying it, but it doesn't make it true.
Communism and socialism can only be imposed by force of arms, unlike capitalism.
No, capitalism can only be imposed by force of threat of poverty, which to me, is much more insidious. Money (wealth) is a weapon, too.
Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand (Score:3, Interesting)
stereotypically, in rough order:
Left wing = environmentalists, civil rights advocates, poor people, young people, gay people, anti-war protesters
Right wing = rich people, conservative/traditional (usually older) people, religious people, business owners/executives
Basically you have it completely backwards. The far extreme right is called fascism and the far extreme left is called socialism. The thing about prophets was defended by left-wingers concerned with free speech, and the thing about undermining freedoms for the common cause was fascist italy/germany killing jews and gypsies.
The dumbest thing about this (Score:1, Interesting)
is Wikipedia's self-censorship. German Wikipedia deleted all references to the injunction in the article because it would be "implicit POV" (whatever that might be), and they're trying to silence discussions on the talk page because they're supposedly not pertinent. In German we call this "the scissors inside your own head". They're once more the most powerful instrument of censorship.
Re:Completely false summary (Score:3, Interesting)
In terms of free speech in Europe this is very minor, people are jailed for analyses of Nazi treatment of Jews during World War II that don't follow a set pattern.
Citation please?
Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh yay, let's all classify others on a simplistic and misleading two-dimensional political scale. Hey, at least it helps us from having to use our brains to comprehend the world around us.
Re:What?? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand (Score:3, Interesting)
Whether or not hate crimes are a wrongheaded concept is not an issue on which I have a strong stand.
However, it is possible to craft anti-hate laws which essentially make it harder to incite violence in code. For example, a campaign of hatred is mounted without explicit calls to violence, but with inciting of violence being its aims. Supporters of hate crimes who are both genuine and considered would be attempting to achieve a reduction in this type of activity.
I don't claim the existing hate crimes are well crafted. Most of the ones I've reviewed essentially step up penalties for existing actions when they are racially (or similar) motivated. Some say this is completely unreasonable, because it is about intention. However, we have different crimes for killing people depending upon various types of intention from no crime, through wrongful death and manslaughter up to first degree murder. It seems that a more insightful debate is required to convince me either way on hate crimes.
Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm not sure it is. Riots are often not aimed at any person or group of persons - it's hard to find a victim of a riot. If your car is torched during a riot, you're the victim of criminal damage. Maybe someone incited the riot, but are they really liable for incitement to criminal damage in the case of your car? "Kill Salman Rushdie" is incitement to murder, clearly. "Purge the world of the scourge of gingas" is a hard one to call. I'm not sure if many jurisdictions have specific laws against genocide. It's easy (you know what I mean, I hope) once someone dies - someone is guilty of murder, but is the ginga-hater guilty of incitement in the specific case of the dead ginga? I guess it depends how awful you think genetic-composition-based hate is. It certainly lies somewhere between the diffuse crime of incitement to riot and the specific crime of incitement to murder.
IANAL by the way. I no longer have the mane of a ginga either, age is drawing my tricolour coat towards drab with white highlights.
Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand (Score:2, Interesting)
Please explain how forcing people to give up all the fruits of all their labor is "libertarian" ... Because all lefties ever mention is names, they never touch upon the contents of their ideology.
So : how do you force everyone to share all the fruits of their labour "with everyone" (and who decides, because if the deciders are corrupt, which they always are, obviously you haven't solved anything).
Always the same with leftists. Lefty politics is "peaceful", as long as they're not in power ... after that ... terms like "endlosung" or "gulag" are generally used.