German Killers Sue Wikipedia To Remove Their Names 859
Jason Levine writes "Wolfgang Werlé and Manfred Lauber killed a German actor in 1990. Now that they are out of prison, German law states that they can't be referred to by name in relation to the killings. Therefore, they have sued to get Wikipedia to remove their names from the Wikipedia article about the killings. The German edition of Wikipedia has already complied, but the English edition is citing US freedom of speech and a lack of presence in Germany as reasons why they don't need to remove the name. In a bit of irony, their lawyer e-mailed the NY Times: 'In the spirit of this discussion, I trust that you will not mention my clients' names in your article.'"
Same old, same old (Score:2, Interesting)
It's the same story all over again. Once the information is out, there's no way to lock it down again, at least, not without severely affecting our modern means of conveying information, and even that seems unthinkable. Essentially, it's impossible, no matter how many laws you make. Iranian dissenters can find proxies over the internet, samizdat dissemination in Soviet Russia; it's everywhere. The technology for instant everpresent information can't be unlearned. We've spent many centuries perfecting it since Gutenberg's printing press.
Our society would do well to simply accept the present state of instant and everpresent information instead of trying to suppress it.
Re:Get your lawyers ready /. (Score:3, Interesting)
this is not a huge problem (Score:2, Interesting)
1. make an article about each of them.
-do not mention the murders
-mention everything else about their life
-like the fact that they sued wikipedia
-mention the fact that you cant talk about what they did thanks to german law
-link to the german law involved
2. make an article about the murders.
-mention that the killers got out of prison
-mention what year they got out
-mention everything about them except their names
-you could even make up fake names, like 'Famous Actor Case Convict X' and 'Famous Actor Case Convict Y',
in other words.... you push that law right up to the point where it is about to break. but you dont beak it. smart readers can fill in the blanks, and most readers ae smart
Re:Get your lawyers ready /. (Score:5, Interesting)
...NOT (Score:5, Interesting)
Do you really believe that? It's easy for the United States to be all indignant when it comes to German killers. But what do you think will happen when, say, the RIAA/MPAA lobbies to have domain names such as thepiratebay.org preemptively revoked?
Germany need to have a say in how DNS is run, as does the United States, England, France, Russia, China, and all the other nations of the world. Does Germany want x blocked or removed? Too damn bad, Swaziland vetoed them. Does the U.S. want that pesky torrent tracker site blown away? Too damn bad, Antigua says it stays. Everybody wins.
Having one nation in control of who gets to have a voice sucks, no matter which nation it is or how much they profess to love freedom of speech (while simultaneously making it harder and harder to enjoy that "freedom").
Re:Streisand Effect (Score:3, Interesting)
How many times must slashdotters tell these people how the World works ?
These people have not been part of the "world" (or society) for about 20 years. And yeah I know that prison is part of the world and society, but they totally missed the whole internet thing, so it's not surprising that they think this can be done. On the other hand, his lawyers should have adviced them better.
Re:Their names are J.delanoy and Mike.lifeguard (Score:2, Interesting)
Wikipedia should ban people for being murderers like Something Awful does
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Andrew_Allred#Public_Reactions [encycloped...matica.com]
Also I just permabanned this guy because he murdered two people: http://forums.somethingawful.com/member.php?s=&action=getinfo&userid=84611 [somethingawful.com]
Now the question I have here is that, in the rules, it doesn't explicitly state you will be permabanned or punished in any way if you murder people. Does this make the user terms of conditions unclear?
Re:Freedom of Speech (Score:3, Interesting)
Silliness. Court records, including the names of the parties involved, are sealed all the time in the US, for a variety of reasons. Germany simply has a different set of reasons than the US does. (In the US those reasons generally involve money, while in Germany they involve blood; this should come as a surprise to nobody.) If you think any one country, including the US, is going to do an adequate job preserving freedom of speech online, you're deluding yourself.
Re:A fresh start (Score:3, Interesting)
Freedom of speech, in the United States at least, is not given to citizens so that they can harm other people's reputations or hold them accountable for their actions.
I know of no such restriction that protection of speech is limited to only speech regarding the government. In fact, I'm quite sure that speech protection covers discussing all historical events. Some of the few restrictions are libel, slander, and obscenity.
What about that one night when your best friend tried to walk out of the bar drunk, and you stole the car keys and the two of you got into a big fight and the police were called? You want the whole world to know about these things? Or--was it just a mistake and once amends have been made then that's the end of it?
The examples you give are potentially private matters, so addressing them only clouds the issue. This particular case is very much NOT a private matter, and from the article was extraordinary public and common knowledge.
The idea that the public at large is supposed to "by law" forget about a very public event and not refer to the perpetrators in print is simply abhorrent to me. Are the victims no longer allowed to refer to the assailants by name?
Re:Get your lawyers ready /. (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm with you 100% on the murder comment; I don't think anyone (let's ignore minors for a sec; that would open a whole ball-of-wax) who commits 1st degree murder (which this sounds like) should get less than lift-without-parole.
However, the goal of the law in more general terms is actually a pretty good idea. Reducing recidivism rates requires that people who get out of jail actually have a shot at getting a decent job and continuing on with their life. Having a criminal background can make this very difficult.
Re:Bubby? Is that you? (Score:4, Interesting)
The premise of the law is laudible, but rather than have everything related to them shovelled down the memory hole, lest someone googles their names and decides not to give them a second chance, wouldn't it be easier if they simply changed their names?
Re:Bubby? Is that you? (Score:1, Interesting)
You've got no duty...but...so what if they killed some one?
What if they're a soldier or a LEO who took out someone in self defense? For that matter--I'm from the states. I believe (and my state actually constitution grants the right) that I've pretty much got an absolute human right to defend myself. Somebody breaks into my house...(or even tries to use violence to get me to move in public, although I would choose to move on then)--I've got an unconditional right to stand my ground and utilize deadly force.
Does it make me a bad person? You don't have to treat me the same way if you found out I did it--but I see more than enough situations where there's a completely legitimate reason to kill someone that..not everyone who did it ought to be ostracized. Even if you don't agree with my example--if you claim there's never a need for police to utilize deadly force--you're not only likely insane, but just plane wrong.
Honestly--all this stuff about people who kill someone being bad...is a load of shit. It has value only as much as any other rule does--in that it's a perfectly good general guideline and objective--but falls apart ridiculously like any unprincipled rigid interpretation of rules always does.
A person who is not willing to fight, and even murder under ANY circumstance is NOT civilized. They are a coward with nothing they hold sacred--and less worthy of respect than even the worst of villains--who at least have a principle. I'm sure many have said it better, or less bluntly than that--but it's the truth. As society--we can and should disagree on what circumstances may be acceptable--but anyone who feels that there could never be a time for killing thinks so little of themselves that they may as well not exist.
Re:Get your lawyers ready /. (Score:3, Interesting)
according to the wikipedia article, they were sentenced to life in prison. they were released on parole after 15 years; by one common definition of parole, they have not yet served all their time, but are being allowed out early.
Re:Holocaust denial illegal , naming killers illeg (Score:2, Interesting)
[citation needed] (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm sure a lot of people will agree with what you say, but that doesn't necessarily make it right. If we knew the solution for crime, crime wouldn't exist. What you are presenting are philosophical arguments mostly, without any objective studies showing they are effective.
Many people would say that a murder is never "paid up", so the criminal should never be forgotten. After all, if he did commit a murder once, what is to guarantee he will never do so again? Who can say the criminal is ever "cured"?
There's nothing irrational or unfair about people wanting protection from criminals. As long as no one can be sure that the criminal will not commit other crimes, and as long as recidivism among "cured" criminals is so high, we, the honest people, have the right to know who are the people most likely to commit crimes against us.
I don't see it that way, I don't worry about retribution, I don't think crimes like murders can ever be "paid", no matter what is done to the criminal. It's preventing further crimes I'm worried about.
Sure, jail isn't perfect, but it's an effective way to keep criminals isolated until they learn how stupid it is to be a criminal. You can argue that it's inhuman, but if someone must suffer, let the criminals suffer, not the innocent who are outside.
Re:Bubby? Is that you? (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't know about the States but I like to think that over here we've outgrown eye-for-an-eye. Granted, I'd feel uneasy around someone I know to be a murderer but I wouldn't go out of my way to harm them.
Re:A fresh start (Score:4, Interesting)
The German society seems to be okay with forgetting such things. A large part of the slashdot community (a significant part of it living in the US) seems not to be okay with this. Different places, different minds.
I am German and no, I am not okay with this law. I also don't mind criticism from the US. Just because you live somewhere else doesn't mean you can't have an insightful opinion. Fuck moral relativism.
Re:Get your lawyers ready /. (Score:1, Interesting)
Really? What do you call abortion? How can you call yourself civilized and still support a barbaric practice?
Re:Bubby? Is that you? (Score:3, Interesting)
There's a difference between criminal records and having that information in easily accessible public libraries. Don't know about your country, in mine criminal records are not really public. Even if they are, they're hardly something you'd easily dig up without good reason, with but a cursory glance at the web.
And let's better not get into people happening to have the same name.
What an insane law (Score:3, Interesting)
Does it require that we go around the world with a black marker redacting their names from all those printed newspapers from before they serve their time? How would you like to make everyone just "forget" as well?
I suppose I understand Germany's position: they did their time, you aren't allowed to punish them more, but just *change their actual names*. It would be *much* easier than trying to put the genie back in the bottle.
Re:Bubby? Is that you? (Score:2, Interesting)
Their sentence was handed out by a German judge and did not include being haunted for the rest of their lives. They are convicted murderers, but they also are human beings. If you think that last fact means nothing for you, then you are saying you have no respect for human beings. It is easy to respect the rights of someone you agree with. You show your civility in how you respect the rights of those you disagree with.
Ironic to hear that, given Germany's free speech laws. It's too bad these murderers weren't carrying swastikas, because then they'd really have gotten stiff sentences!