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.'"
Get your lawyers ready /. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
These gentlemen were declared perpetrators of a crime a few years ago, hence their sentence for a crime which shall be unspecified, yet the crime DID decrease the population by one, if that detail interests you.
And what were the names of these gentlemen?
Re:Get your lawyers ready /. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Get your lawyers ready /. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Get your lawyers ready /. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nice attempt to troll but that bit is getting old, try to give it a little freshness by perhaps giving examples (no matter how marginal and irrelevant) of how US states are more independent from the federal government than EU member states are from the EU.
/Mikael
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
None of which is U.S. enforced.
All the things you just described are State-level agreements. i.e. "If you find a criminal in your state, please arrest him. Thanks."
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?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If they did their time they'd be buried in a state-owned plot with a small placard to mark the spot and this whole discussion would be nonexistent.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If they did their time they'd be buried in a state-owned plot with a small placard to mark the spot and this whole discussion would be nonexistent.
Funny how some people, for all their preaching, have have a blind spot on the most essential human right of all.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's the funny thing, because I never said anything about killing them. A life sentence (a real one) would have exactly the same outcome I described.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (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:Get your lawyers ready /. (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Since when is it your job to tell Germany how to apply its laws?
Since when is it Germany's job to tell Wikipedia how to censor its content?
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That said, I do agree that one purpose of the prison system should be reform. However, hiding what someone has done in the past doesn't necessarily help the people they are around or to reform them. In fact, hiding somones criminal past can make it easier for them to comit crimes again. Say, a convicted imbezzler working with large amounts of cash? The question between balancing the protection of the public
Drastic penalties have drastic side effects (Score:3, Insightful)
If you happen to commit one murder, and the penalty is the same as for 100 murders, you would be correct in finding it logically desirable to kill every potential witness and their family for good measure, instead of stopping at one victim.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
People like you tarnish the global reputation of the country we share, and policies like the ones you advocate erode our human dignity. We already punish crimes too severely. We lock up more than one out of every hundred people. That's savage. There aren't anywhere near that number of dangerous people: no culture is that twisted.
Our attitude toward crime is one of punishment, punishment, and more punishment.
What you'd get out of our losing the keys isn't a rational sense of safety, but rather the visceral s
[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:Get your lawyers ready /. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Rude would be if I called you ein verdammter Idiot, it could be seen as either justice or cruelty but never rudeness I think. Personally, I think there are people that are beyond redemption and should be given life without the possibility for release, but I'm against the death penalty on the principle that courts are fallible. We know there has been cases where people convicted to death later have turned out to be innocent, of course nothing can really give them back the 20 years in jail either but then you
Bubby? Is that you? (Score:3, Insightful)
Are we not allowed to state simple facts now?
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.
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: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.
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?
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, I do make the same argument for anyone. If they're released, then they are deemed no longer harmful. If they were considered harmful, they would not be released. Yes, there are of course problems with this. Laws are the work of humans, humans err and thus other humans get harmed. But what's the alternative?
To you the same question that I asked above, if you don't want to give a person the chance to reintegrate and redeem, why bother releasing them?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That these guys killed someone and were convicted of it is a recorded, historical fact. No allegations, simple fact. Are we not allowed to state simple facts now?
Depends where "we" is - in Germany, apparently not. In the US, yes.
Different lands, different laws.
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.
Re:Bubby? Is that you? (Score:4, Informative)
> 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.
> 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.
Public trials, public records are public because of certain laws make them public (simply ignoring to check if it was a public trial in this specific case). In order to be able to have public trials, there is the need for additional rules. In Germany the people (being a democratic country) have decided to provide some kind of protection to offenders. So, when claiming information is public one must honor as well the limitations set that made this information public.
> 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.
> The question is not whether this fact may or may not be published; it has been published and is part of the public record. The question is whether government has the right to retroactively rewrite public databases, public records, and public facts.
Wrong. The question is whether the subjects have to right to request said information to be removed from public records that were illegally added to such public records. Note, in Germany the government has nothing to do with this at all; they wrote those laws in the past. It is now up to a judge to decide which law/right to uphold. As op said, there are different approaches to prison. Some countries see it as punishment, others as a correction tool where wrong behavior is adjusted. Study both approaches carefully and you'll see they are worlds apart.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The question is whether the subjects have to right to request said information to be removed from public records
They clearly have that right in Germany. The question is what that says about German democracy.
To most people in functioning democracies, it is absolutely unthinkable for a democratic government to alter the contents of historical archives or libraries, for any reason whatsoever. If Germans (or you) think this is OK, there is something wrong with you and the rest of the world cannot trust you or
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.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bubby? Is that you? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Bubby? Is that you? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bubby? Is that you? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This was not self defense, home defense, nor an accident. N
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry, but I have no duty to treat a murderer the same way I would treat an innocent person, even if they've served their sentence. The German parliament made a poor decision to pass a law protecting a murderer from the disgust of the public.
You got that backwards. Precisely due to the lack of that duty, their names need to be withheld so that they can start a new life outside of prison. The alternative would be to keep most offenders in prison forever, but that's not what's currently being done over here
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?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry, but I have no duty to treat a murderer the same way I would treat an innocent person, even if they've served their sentence. The German parliament made a poor decision to pass a law protecting a murderer from the disgust of the public.
-jcr
No, they did not made a poor decision. This is just your opinion. The opinion that a convicted person can never reenter society as an equal. Which is not the opinion of Germany.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Bubby? Is that you? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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.
Re: (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 o
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You are right that those are the facts, but must facts always haunt you?
Gee, I don't know because that's the fucking reality of the situation? The guy they murdered doesn't spring back to life after they've paid their "debt". They've got some nerve complaining about how rotten their lives are after taking someone else's. Perhaps they would have been happier with a lethal injection?
Re:Bubby? Is that you? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This deficiency is being adressed, though. See, for example, "hate crime" laws.
I don't follow you here. How do hate crime laws contradict the notion that "truth is an absolute defense" in the US?
Hate crime laws apply when someone has committed a serious crime. They set enhanced minimum penalties when the crime was committed out of hatred against one of the enumerated minorities. The reason for that is that juries have traditionally been softer on criminals who hurt minorities.
So, how do hate crime laws a
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.
Cause and Effect (Score:3, Funny)
Less Hasselhoff, more Streisand.
Wolfgang Werlé and Manfred Lauber (Score:3, Informative)
Wolfgang Werlé and Manfred Lauber are killers. Nothing can whitewash that.
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.
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..."
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes. If you murder two people, then I have the right to know about it. That you served your time and have set out in the world to start over is your right once released. But people have the right to know the guy down the street is a convicted murderer.
What happens if somebody is released for sexual predation of children? Should their names be stricken from any record of the crime? Does the young mother living next door to this released predator have no right to know of a potential danger?
I am all for giving
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.
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: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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's you who doesn't seem to understand that rights are highly subjective.
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?
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.
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.
Re: A fresh start (Score:4, Insightful)
So you are saying people can't change? They could be radically different people after 20years.
"An act like this *should* haunt the perpetrators for the rest of their lives."
That is called REVENGE. Something that is not at all useful. I'd like to hope that we could evolve past this base need.
You seem to think that making this guys life harder will some how bring back the dead dude. It won't. You seem to think that this man being tortured will ease their hearts and make them happy. It won't. And if it did it fucking shouldn't, those thoughts are pretty horrible and something again we should move past.
Re: (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,
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
And when they kill again, say at a job, the employer can just shrug off responsibility because the law says you're not supposed to know they kill people.
How about pedophiles being hired at schools?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, you're just blatantly making shit up. There's a l
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, blatantly misrepresenting the concept of freedom of speech in the US, arguing for censorship of the information in the US on the basis of German laws, and making an extremely dishonest comparison between the release of private information like pictures of yourself naked and public information like that you fucking murdered someone is flamebait. The only thing sad here is that you think you actually have a proper argument.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
While I recognize the goal of precedent -- to provide consistency in legal decisions -- I have to envy the Germans on this one. The major side-effect of precedent in American law is that it creates such a huge body of law, often piling ambiguity on top of ambiguity, that the general public cannot understand the law. At the very least, I wish that case law that added to (or invalidated) existing statutory law forced the law back to the legislature for clarification and correction.
right of disassociation (Score:3, Insightful)
The _murderer's_ rights aren't violated by people knowing what they did. They should have been executed anyways. But irrelevant of that, non-aggressive people also have the right of freedom of association. I for one choose not to associate with people I consider dangerous.
In a free society, criminals would owe restitution to their victims, and victims would be also entitled to request retribution against the criminal. Then people at large could make their own associative or dis-associative decisions regarding the criminal.
One thing is clear, however. It doesn't violate anyone's rights for other people to know information about them that they've made publicly available through their actions.
Note that I'm not saying I have, per se, the right to know information about other people. That would imply positive obligations on the part of other people. However, no-one has the right to stop the various people at Wikipedia from recording and maintaining an account of history. That is their private property right.
Re:right of disassociation (Score:4, Insightful)
The _murderer's_ rights aren't violated by people knowing what they did. They should have been executed anyways. But irrelevant of that, non-aggressive people also have the right of freedom of association. I for one choose not to associate with people I consider dangerous.
Most countries in the world do not hold to the barbaric idea of execution. We are supposed to be more moral than animals.
In a free society, criminals would owe restitution to their victims, and victims would be also entitled to request retribution against the criminal. Then people at large could make their own associative or dis-associative decisions regarding the criminal.
They paid their restitution, the victims likely requested their desired restitution, and you can associate or not with people in general, but people need not actively tell you that they committed a crime, or necessarily any other sort of information. In a free society, we have the right to disclose personal details at our own discretion... some details will be worn on our face... the color of our skin, our gender, etc... but in general, we should have our privacy to tell only the details that we wish to.
You're still free to choose not to associate with ex-criminals... but how many of them do you really know? I suppose more people than you would expect have had criminal run-ins... especially if you live in the USA.
One thing is clear, however. It doesn't violate anyone's rights for other people to know information about them that they've made publicly available through their actions.
Note that I'm not saying I have, per se, the right to know information about other people. That would imply positive obligations on the part of other people. However, no-one has the right to stop the various people at Wikipedia from recording and maintaining an account of history.
People have a right to privacy. The USA has "false light" laws as well as defamation laws. Sometimes, even if information is true, if it is presented with actual malice, it is wrong, and the individual is entitled to damages.
That is their private property right.
You seem to misunderstand what prompts rights. A government grants the rights of their citizens to their citizens. There is not some omnipotent higher-power that brings his hand down to personally interfere with human legal machinations.
Re:right of disassociation (Score:4, Insightful)
In a free society, criminals would owe restitution to their victims, and victims would be also entitled to request retribution against the criminal. Then people at large could make their own associative or dis-associative decisions regarding the criminal.
In a completely free society, nobody is stopped from doing anything, which includes murdering others. A completely free society has no laws, and the strong rule.
In a society where people value life, liberty, and property, we restrict what others can do in order to protect those rights which we, as a society, have determined are most important. Thus, in order to protect my right to life, we have enacted laws against murder. In order to protect my right to property, we have enacted laws against theft. By violating the victim's right to life, those criminals gave up their right to freedom for nineteen years. According to German law, they have apparently given up no other right, and owe nobody else any other restitution. Their debt has been paid, and they now have all the rights given any other citizen. That's fine by me.
I still side with Wikipedia here because, among other reasons, German laws should not apply outside Germany. However, I object to your statement that in free society retribution is expected. Every law removes of some liberties in order to protect rights which said society values and thus, by definition, makes a society less free. A completely free society would not be one I'd like to live in, so these restrictions can make for a better society, but not a freer one.
Note that I'm not saying I have, per se, the right to know information about other people. That would imply positive obligations on the part of other people. However, no-one has the right to stop the various people at Wikipedia from recording and maintaining an account of history. That is their private property right.
Yes, I agree completely with you there. Seems like if they wanted to protect the identity of the murderers once they got out of jail, a better law would have been to never reveal this information in the first place, except to people who have some reason to be directly involved (family of the victims and the criminals, lawyers, etc). Once the information is out, it's out.
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:Freedom of Speech (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Freedom of Speech (Score:4, Insightful)
Just look at what's censored from American TV! Spike TV, "the network for men", can't even broadcast "God damn it" or "asshole", as if their UFC audience would be offended!
Any claim that Americans are the worldwide guardians of free speech is an epic fail.
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!
...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: (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: (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: (Score:3, Insightful)
So if a law against something exists, anywhere on the planet, everyone should follow it? I'm pretty sure you don't want the world to adhere to Saudi Arabian, Singaporean, or North Korean laws. And I'm pretty sure they wouldn't want to adhere to Western laws.
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.
Re:A proposal (Score:4, Funny)
The Werlé-Lauber effect sounds like something physics students would have to memorize an equation for.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or maybe you and GPP just aren't smart enough to see the irony.
The American lawyer dealing with this is named Godwin. Surely you get the irony in that, if nothing else.
"Ironic" was a stupid song, but the stupidity of the reaction to it is far greater. Every use of the word "ironic" is now a red flag for every would-be pedant who isn't nearly as smart as he thinks he is.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I hereby demand that the names of all involved countries be removed from the WWII wikipedia article!