7008326
story
Comments: 859 +- Your Rights Online: German Killers Sue Wikipedia To Remove Their Names on Saturday November 14, @11:16AM
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicprivacy.gif); width:71px; height:53px;
privacy
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicdoj.gif); width:50px; height:79px;
court
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicinternet.gif); width:70px; height:73px;
internet
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.'"
Related Stories
Necessity is a mother.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.
Get your lawyers ready /. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Get your lawyers ready /. (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Get your lawyers ready /. (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Get your lawyers ready /. (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Get your lawyers ready /. (Score:5, Funny)
No, but I'm pretty sure that now they are in prison someone else knows their assholes.
Parent
Re:Get your lawyers ready /. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't care what their names are. What are they doing out of prison?
They did the crime, they served their time. What's so hard to understand about that?
Parent
Re:Get your lawyers ready /. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Get your lawyers ready /. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you think that is wrong, move to Germany and change the laws, but don't advocate just ignoring the laws.
Can we apply that same rule to this case, which would keep the killers name in the wikipedia article?
Parent
Re:Get your lawyers ready /. (Score:4, Insightful)
Since when is it Germany's job to tell the US how to apply the First Amendment?
Since when does a german lawyer and his german clients represent the nation of Germany. The lawyer would be ignoring his duties in protecting his clients if he didn't petition US wikipedia and news agencies to not discuss his clients. He's not going to win this fight because of the first amendment but he has to try.
Parent
Re:Get your lawyers ready /. (Score:5, Insightful)
The EU countries, unlike some other countries, are civilized ones and here we don't execute our citizens.
Parent
[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.
Parent
Re:Get your lawyers ready /. (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Wolfgang Werlé & Manfred Lauber are murde (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Wolfgang Werlé & Manfred Lauber are mu (Score:4, Funny)
maybe time to register:
wolfgangwerleandmanfredlaubermurderedayoungactorin1990.com
Curious if you could register the .de counterpart.
Parent
A fresh start (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sure a lot of people are going to come out against the position of Germany's culture on this, citing freedom of speech. 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. It is there so that actions by the government can be openly criticized and constructive dialog be established between (and amongst) citizens and the government, without fear of reprisal. It is there for the betterment of everyone. If there is no benefit to society, no protection is granted.
These people have served their sentences. They have been punished according to the law of their land, and then released. In this country, a person's criminal record haunts them for life -- denying them jobs, restricting their freedoms, and in some cases leading to a greatly diminished quality of life such that they are forced into criminal enterprise in order to meet basic needs. But in Germany, these laws are crafted so that people can have a chance at a normal life again--A chance at redemption. It is recognized that people make mistakes, but these mistakes shouldn't haunt them for the rest of their lives. The government has stepped in to ensure that any adult citizen that has their freedom also has the same chances as the next.
As far as the internet -- do we really want it to be a tool that enables a person's past mistakes to haunt them forever? That any personal information, once released into it, somehow becomes public property? Those naked photos your boyfriend took of you when you thought you'd be with him forever -- are those public property once he breaks up with you and posts them online? How about the records of your divorce, or the reasons why you were fired? 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?
Just because the information is out there doesn't mean it should be. Information doesn't have rights -- people do.
Re:A fresh start (Score:4, Insightful)
What about the rights of Walter Sedlmayr, who the duo tortured, mutilated, and killed because he was gay? He apparently doesn't matter anymore, you know, because they murdered him.
Everyone makes mistakes, right? Hogwash.
So these men should have a chance at a normal life again? What about Sedlmayr's normal life?
Parent
Re:A fresh start (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure a lot of people are going to come out against the position of Germany's culture on this, citing freedom of speech. 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. It is there so that actions by the government can be openly criticized and constructive dialog be established between (and amongst) citizens and the government, without fear of reprisal. It is there for the betterment of everyone. If there is no benefit to society, no protection is granted.
Actually, no that is not the fundamental premise of the US concept of freedom of speech. It is that the prior restraint of speech is so onerous that it is not allowed; so that open debate can be had around issues.
These people have served their sentences. They have been punished according to the law of their land, and then released. In this country, a person's criminal record haunts them for life -- denying them jobs, restricting their freedoms, and in some cases leading to a greatly diminished quality of life such that they are forced into criminal enterprise in order to meet basic needs. But in Germany, these laws are crafted so that people can have a chance at a normal life again--A chance at redemption. It is recognized that people make mistakes, but these mistakes shouldn't haunt them for the rest of their lives. The government has stepped in to ensure that any adult citizen that has their freedom also has the same chances as the next.
As far as the internet -- do we really want it to be a tool that enables a person's past mistakes to haunt them forever? That any personal information, once released into it, somehow becomes public property? Those naked photos your boyfriend took of you when you thought you'd be with him forever -- are those public property once he breaks up with you and posts them online? How about the records of your divorce, or the reasons why you were fired? 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?
Just because the information is out there doesn't mean it should be. Information doesn't have rights -- people do.
Yes, and in the US we have the right of free speech. The solution is not to suppress speech but to change the concept of how past infractions are viewed. While the later is a difficult task; repressing speech in the name of protecting people's rights is far worse.
Of course, as information becomes easier to access people also need to modify behaviors in light of changing technology; which they have been doing since the beginning of time. That is the real solution, IMHO.
Parent
Re: A fresh start (Score:5, Insightful)
Forgive and forget? Seems pretty short-sighted. I'm not sure I'd call murder a "mistake". An act like this *should* haunt the perpetrators for the rest of their lives.
Except for the guy they killed. Where's his freedom and chance?
Lastly, what about the victim's family and friends? How about their chances for normal lives without the murder of their loved-one haunting them. Some things cannot be forgiven and some things should definitely not be forgotten.
Parent
Re:A fresh start (Score:4, Insightful)
"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. It is there so that actions by the government can be openly criticized and constructive dialog be established between (and amongst) citizens and the government, without fear of reprisal. It is there for the betterment of everyone. If there is no benefit to society, no protection is granted."
This is perhaps the biggest pile of bullshit I've read on Slashdot in quite some time. This is not remotely how the U.S. constitution reads. This is complete fabricated nonsense.
Parent
Re:A fresh start (Score:5, Insightful)
Laws are only a reflection of the will of the society. 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. After you've said this, it just comes down to know how such laws are handled between countries. It kind of reminds me the "Yahoo nazi items" [wikipedia.org] controversy, in which the U.S. site of Yahoo was accused to sell nazi items to French people (selling such items is prohibited in this country). Yahoo was ultimately required to prevent the sale of such items to French people. In the story case, I suspect a ruling would not be as clear cut - as there is no financial motive involved for wikipedia.
Parent
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.
Parent
Re:A fresh start (Score:4, Informative)
(1)Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority.
(2) The German people therefore acknowledge inviolable and inalienable human rights as the basis of every community, of peace and of justice in the world.
(3) The following basic rights shall bind the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary as directly applicable law.
That's what our society is built upon. Personal freedoms come second, equality before the law third, freedom of faith fourth and freedom of speech fifth. Of course they're all equally important as far as the law is concerned and nobody except a lawyer cares about the exact order anyway. But that first article is the important one: We believe that everyone has a basic, inviolable right to dignity. Freedom of speech violates the ex-inmates' dignity in this case, therefore freedom of speech is wrong in this case.
Yes, the USA think differently. Yes, I'm going to receive two dozen answers all angrily telling me that Germany must be completely insane to not put freedom of speech above everything else and that this guarantees we will devolve into an inhuman, totalitarian regime any minute now because non-total freedom of speech invariably begets total censorship. Hey, if you feel particularly zealous why don't you suggest we topple the government through force?
I don't care. I don't declare freedom-of-speech-at-all-costs my personal god. If someone thinks that makes me borderline fascist then so be it.
Parent
Small incorrectness in the NYT article (Score:5, Informative)
It states:
The question of excising names from archives has not yet been resolved by the German courts, he said.
There is no such concept as precedence in the German law. Every judge and every court is free to decide based solely on the current law and the merits of the case. There is something called prevailing opinion, but this is not obligatory, it is rather used as a shortcut by judges to reach a decision.
Only decisions by the highest courts (BVG = Federal Constitutional Court and BGH = Federal Court of Justice) are binding.
Shoe on the other foot ! Hypocrits (Score:5, Insightful)
This is fascinating -- when the United States [frequently] seeks to have its laws apply beyond its borders [extraterritoriality], everyone particularly the EU objects reflexively: "How dare they? We're a separate society."
Now some in the EU think its laws should apply to the US. And not just about this, also other issues. Why should anyone in the US, and particularly elements of the [deservedly] much-abused US government give a rats @$$ for such blatant hypocrisy? Surely no-one denies the US is a distinct society!
Re:Bubby? Is that you? (Score:5, Informative)
In theory right, but in this case you have to weigh the interests. These people committed a crime, did their time and now they are free again. They should be given a chance to reintegrate into society. At least in Germany the idea behind prison is to "better" the person, not just revenge and punishment. And this can be severely hindered if the first thing you find when you look for his name is that he's shot someone. Wikipedia has a tendency to come up as the first hit for any given keyword you might be looking for.
Parent
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?
Parent
Re:Bubby? Is that you? (Score:5, Insightful)
In theory right, but in this case you have to weigh the interests. These people committed a crime, did their time and now they are free again. They should be given a chance to reintegrate into society. At least in Germany the idea behind prison is to "better" the person, not just revenge and punishment. And this can be severely hindered if the first thing you find when you look for his name is that he's shot someone. Wikipedia has a tendency to come up as the first hit for any given keyword you might be looking for.
Most Americans have been socialized in a culture of punishment, not rehabilitation. It is difficult to try to get us to avoid the knee-jerk reaction of "BUT HE NEEDS TO BE PUNISHED!" It's precisely why we imprison so much of our society.
Parent
Re:Bubby? Is that you? (Score:5, Insightful)
The idea, the concept behind crime&punishment, is that you paid your dues after you are released from prison. Especially in the case of murder these people are examined to determine if they're still a threat for humanity. If they are, they don't go free.
If you don't want to give these people a chance to reintegrate into society, why bother releasing them at all?
Parent
Re:Bubby? Is that you? (Score:5, Insightful)
Your name, address, social security number, bank account balance, credit card transactions, passwords, medical history, and so on are simple facts. Should those who have access to that information be allowed to state those simple facts? In public, on the internet, where anyone and everyone can see it?
This is an issue about freedom of speech versus the right to privacy. The murder is a simple fact, but it's something that happened almost 20 years ago. They have done their time, and are being released back into the world, where they need to try and put together a life again. Now, the question is, should anyone (such as potential employers) be able to Google their names and get a Wikipedia article naming them as murderers as the first hit?
This is a tough question. On the one hand, it is a plain and simple fact, that has been widely publicized, so it's fairly hard to put the cat back in the bag. On the other hand, someone who's been in prison for years, and is getting out and trying to re-integrate with society, doesn't need the added burden of everyone who interacts with them treating them with fear and suspicion because of something that happened long ago. Some judicial systems (such as that in the US), focus most on punishment and the deterrent value that supposedly has; others focus on rehabilitation and turning someone back into a productive member of society.
Now, I do favor protecting freedom of speech in this case; you can't suppress the information entirely, so any attempt to is just going to be more harmful than helpful. But I just wanted to point out that just because something is a simple fact, does not mean that it's OK to publish it on the public Internet.
Parent
Re:Bubby? Is that you? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a cultural difference. In America you value freedom of speech above many other rights, including privacy. In Germany, it is the other way around - Germans value privacy greatly, but do not necessarily think everyone should always be allowed to speak their mind. For example, you can go to jail for denying the holocaust happened... but on the other hand Privacy International acknowledges german privacy safeguards while naming the united states an endemic surveillance society. (source [privacyinternational.org]. It seems even Germany is slipping on PI's scales these days...)
They are private facts. The people who hold that information have always been, and will always be, contractually and legally obliged to keep those facts private.
The identity of the murderers isn't just a fact, it's a public fact, part of the public record, established in a public trial.
The main facts remain the same, only the names will be expunged from public access. I would say this is because, once freed, criminals regain a lot of their rights to privacy.
The question is whether government has the right to retroactively rewrite public databases, public records, and public facts. The only possible answer is a resounding "no". Fascist states, dictatorships, and communist states rewrite history; democracies do not.
Oh, you can't just denounce everyone who doesn't share to the your particular viewpoint of an ideal democracy as fascist! Different cultures have different needs. Both viewpoints are trying to achieve an ideal but falling short as realistic governments are bound to.
Anyway, it's not altering history, it's expunging names from the public record to protect people. It's not like they're writing someone else's name into the history books.
This is a tough question.
No, it really isn't
It's just that your particular value system only permits one possible answer, but not everyone shares that system precisely. Disagree if you must, but at the very least you have to agree that in Germany, the german people should be allowed to make their laws as they see fit. Now, American law disagrees with German law. How then do you approach such an international thing as wikipedia? You don't think this is a tough question? The obvious answers all leave a lot to be desired.
Parent
Re:Bubby? Is that you? (Score:4, Insightful)
They KILLED someone.
I think I would like to know the a potential employee is a murderer, that isn't something you want to come to light later on when said person goes on an office rampage.
Parent
Re:Bubby? Is that you? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Bubby? Is that you? (Score:4, Insightful)
Or someone close to you that was killed by someone who was placed in an untenable situation. If you let someone out of prison and then make sure that they can't feed themselves or have anything resembling a life you shouldn't be surprised when they return to the only option left open to them, crime.
Parent
Re:Bubby? Is that you? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Bubby? Is that you? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Bubby? Is that you? (Score:4, Insightful)
Honestly, no, I wouldn't think of them the same way as I would someone else.
Because they actually killed someone.
Parent
Re:Bubby? Is that you? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Amen! (Score:5, Insightful)
Enough with the goddamn excuse culture. You want respect, you earn respect. You want a second chance, then PROVE you deserve it first.
These guys killed someone and now they want the world to pretend it has never happened. Does NOT happen.
Parent
Re:Amen! (Score:5, Insightful)
Enough with the goddamn excuse culture. You want respect, you earn respect. You want a second chance, then PROVE you deserve it first.
Yeah, but how are they supposed to do that?
If you're going to make them walk around with a scarlet letter 'M' on their chests for the rest of their lives, just what opportunities will they ever have to redeem themselves?
If the purpose of prison is to reform criminals and give them the opportunity to return to society as productive citizens -- as seems to be the prevailing theory in Germany -- then it is the responsibility of the public to put that theory to the test. You can't send people to prison telling them, "you must reform," then let them out and tell them, "you have not reformed, sorry." One of the fundamental principles of justice in any democratic country is that the accused is allowed to speak up in his own defense, but what you're describing is a sentence from which there is no appeal.
Parent
Re:Bubby? Is that you? (Score:5, Insightful)
No I think the idea here is that if you have done the time in jail then you should have the right to a normal life.
That's a seriously wrong understanding of a "normal life". After they come out of jail, the government has an obligation to treat these people no differently than anybody else. Everybody else (employers, private citizens), however, are under no obligation to forgive and forget.
There is something seriously wrong with you if you think that it is the government's job to revise historical facts for the purpose of tricking me into associating with people I would otherwise not want anything to do with.
This is the premise of our entire justice system.
If rewriting historical facts is a recognized function of the German justice system, then Germany is already careening out of control towards fascism again.
Ask yourself if you were introduced to a person and you found out that they were murderers would you think of them the same way?
Of course not. They are murderers. They have to live with the consequences of their past actions, just like everybody else.
Parent
Re:Bubby? Is that you? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd prefer not to know, so I could treat them the way I'd treat anyone. The way I see it, that way they have the possibility to redeem themselves. If they are hated and persecuted everywhere they go, what good are they to themselves or to anyone else?
Parent
Re:Bubby? Is that you? (Score:5, Insightful)
You have a duty to not assume they're still bad people,
Like hell I do. I can assume whatever I care to, with or without your approval.
who are you to judge?
I'm a person with the right to form my opinions according to my own standards. Who are you to order me not to?
-jcr
Parent
Re:Freedom of Speech (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Freedom of Speech (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh REALLY?
Explain the PATRIOT act to me?
While the American constitution undeniably is what you say it is, the past 20 years has not been kind to America!
Parent
...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").
Parent
Re:this is not a huge problem (Score:4, Funny)
'Famous Actor Case Convict X' and 'Famous Actor Case Convict Y'
I guess I can accept that with sufficiently large values of Wolfgang Werlé for X and sufficiently large values of Manfred Lauber for Y.
Parent
Re:A proposal (Score:4, Funny)
The Werlé-Lauber effect sounds like something physics students would have to memorize an equation for.
Parent
Re:"WERE killers" or "HAVE killed", not "ARE kille (Score:4, Insightful)
You know, I admit I am biased. I don't like murderers like Wolfgang Werlé and Manfred Lauber, because their victims have no recourse, ever again. And while I do believe that some of them can change and not be a threat to other people again, that doesn't mean that the past didn't happen. Forgiveness yes, whitewash the past, fuck no!
Murderers should very well learn to live with the consequences of their actions, because their actions have consequences that can never be rectified.
Parent
Re:"WERE killers" or "HAVE killed", not "ARE kille (Score:5, Insightful)
A young man is walking through a small village one day and decides to stop by a bar and have a beer. He walks into a bar, and sees a grizzled old man, crying into his beer. Curious, the young man sits down and says, "Hey old timer, why the long face?"
The old man looks at him and points out the window, "See that dock out there? I built that dock with my own two hands, plank by plank, nail by nail, but do they call me McGregor the dockbuilder? No, no."
The old man continued, "And see that ship out there? I've been fishing these waters for my village for 35 years! But do they call me McGregor the fisherman? No, no."
The old man continued, "And see all the crops in the farms out there? I planted and have been farming those crops for my village for nearly 45 years! But do they call me McGregor the farmer? No, no."
The old man starts to cry again, "But you fuck one goat..."
Parent
Re:NOT Ironic!! (Score:5, Informative)
The American lawyer dealing with this is named Godwin. Surely you get the irony in that, if nothing else.
The American lawyer dealing with this is, in fact, the same Mike Godwin who created Godwin's law.
Parent