Heh and now german courts are objecting to wikipedia.

[geni]

Germany cannot block wikipedia but they have done what they can with a preliminary injunction that bars the internet address www.wikipedia.de which is owned by the Wikimedia Deutschland from linking to de.wikipedia.org. Wikimedia Deutschland is independent from the wikimedia foundation that runs wikipedia so this doesn't impact wikipedia dirrectly but still anoying. Aparently due to some german poltician called Lutz Heilmann.

http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/08/11/15/1944211.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutz_Heilmann

A defence to an extent of what is going on can be found at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lutz_Heilmann#Closing_Wikipedia_on_November_1 3th

[drkitten]

Germany cannot block wikipedia but they have done what they can with a preliminary injunction that bars the internet address www.wikipedia.de which is owned by the Wikimedia Deutschland from linking to de.wikipedia.org. Wikimedia Deutschland is independent from the wikimedia foundation that runs wikipedia so this doesn't impact wikipedia dirrectly but still anoying. Aparently due to some german poltician called Lutz Heilmann.

A preliminary injunction while they sort out libel claims? Seems quite straightforward and aboveboard to me. One of Wikipedia's Achilles' heels has always been the way they try to disclaim responsibility for the content they distribute.

[geni]

A preliminary injunction while they sort out libel claims? Seems quite straightforward and aboveboard to me.

Under german law yes (depening on what the complaint actual is). Creates the obvious problem that if you make enough noise you can have almost anything shut down in the short term.


One of Wikipedia's Achilles' heels has always been the way they try to disclaim responsibility for the content they distribute.

Inder US law that position is bulletproof. In much the same way that your ISP isn't responcible for it's posts. This protection was tested in the Barbara Bauer case and it held up (http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/wikimedia/bauerorder.pdf ).

[Gurdur]

So what, geni, so what?

[Chaos]

So what, geni, so what?

So Germany is a Nazi hellhole, of course. Have you STILL not figured this out? :mad:

[geni]

So what, geni, so what?

A court system that can so lightly issue injuctions against linking to entire sites is something of a liability. One that keeps doing it more so.

[mrbaracuda]

Those ex-SED people just don't like the truth.

[Oliver]

Seriously: WTF? Why didn't they just turned off the whole Internet
around the Globe until Lutz stops whining? :boggled:

As Wiki.de states:

Der Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. (http://wikimedia.de/) ist nicht Anbieter der unter de.wikipedia.org (http://forums.randi.org/de.wikipedia.org) zugänglich gemachten "Wikipedia" und hat auch keinen Einfluss auf die in der Online-Enzyklopädie abrufbaren Inhalte. Der Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. ist vielmehr ein gemeinnütziger Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens, der lediglich über die Anwendung der Wikipedia aufklärt. Betreiber der Enzyklopädie ist die in der Anbieterkennzeichnung der Enzyklopädie genannte Wikimedia Foundation (http://wikimediafoundation.org/), eine in Florida, Vereinigte Staaten, inkorporierte Stiftung mit Sitz in San Francisco.

http://www.wikipedia.de/
What a sad and uninformed clown.

[Oliver]

Even better, the clown is crawling back under the rock he came from:

Wikipedia-Sperre: Heilmann kapituliert (http://www.focus.de/digital/internet/wikipedia-sperre-heilmann-kapituliert_aid_348972.html)
FOCUS Online - vor 1 Stunde gefunden
Im Rechtsstreit zwischen Wikimedia Deutschland und dem Linken-Politiker Lutz Heilmann gibt es einen Sieger: Der Bundestagsabgeordnete erklärte, nicht länger ...

Wikipedia-Abschaltung: Lutz Heilmann macht Rückzieher (http://www.golem.de/0811/63583.html)
Golem.de, Germany - 54 minutes ago
Der Bundestagsabgeordnete Lutz Heilmann (Die Linke) will auf weitere juristische Schritte gegen den Verein Wikimedia Deutschland verzichten. ...

[mrbaracuda]

Wat ein Vogel!

[rjh01]

Oliver
How about providing English translations for us ignorant people who cannot read German please?

[Aepervius]

Rough Translation :
Heilmann capitulate
(on Focus online 1 hour ago) :
In the legal fight between wikimedia germany and the left politics Lutz Heilmann there is now a victor : the representant in Bundestag said he no longer ... (I assume "no longer sue wikimedia")

Lutzt Heilmann make a retreat (golem.de)
The bundestag representant Lutz Heilmann (Die Linke (translator note : "the left")) abandon further legal action against wikimedia germany...


AFAIK he just protested against mention he was a pornographer or something and that he did not have a university diploma. He did not protest that he was mentionned as a Stasi worker or something, this is public knowledge since 2005.

[Aepervius]

Oh, and my 2 cents "geni" Germany cannot block wikipedia but they have done what they can with a preliminary injunction that bars the internet address

*Germany* as a whole did NOT try to block wikimedia. One private person attempted to sue in libel wikimedia, and asked for an injunction to stop from a german court. That specific german court agreed to. That is a bit different than say "germany try to block....".

That is comparable to that (not federal, but some state) court in the US asking a domain name of an online casino to be seized.

[mrbaracuda]

Rough Translation :
Heilmann capitulate
(on Focus online 1 hour ago) :
In the legal fight between wikimedia germany and the left politics Lutz Heilmann there is now a victor : the representant in Bundestag said he no longer ... (I assume "no longer sue wikimedia")

Lutzt Heilmann make a retreat (golem.de)
The bundestag representant Lutz Heilmann (Die Linke (translator note : "the left")) abandon further legal action against wikimedia germany...

Indeed! :)

AFAIK he just protested against mention he was a pornographer or something and that he did not have a university diploma. He did not protest that he was mentionned as a Stasi worker or something, this is public knowledge since 2005.

Eh, those scumbags deny it all the time so I wouldn't be surprised.
I take it you can understand German, so you might want to read this article (http://www.welt.de/politik/article2701898/Stasi-Spitzel-fordern-Persoenlichkeitsrechte-ein.html) which is covering an aspect of this.

[Rasmus]

I read earlier that he was going to stop his legal actions because the article has now been altered to reflect what he thinks of as the truth. I assume it will be mere hours until the past information is back online.

What he has achieved is that now ever<one in Gwermany knows his name and his past. Well done!

[Gurdur]

So what will geni claim now?

[geni]

Oh, and my 2 cents "geni"

*Germany* as a whole did NOT try to block wikimedia. One private person attempted to sue in libel wikimedia, and asked for an injunction to stop from a german court. That specific german court agreed to. That is a bit different than say "germany try to block....".

That is comparable to that (not federal, but some state) court in the US asking a domain name of an online casino to be seized.

You think the courts wouldn't have shut down wikipedia if they had the power to do so? German courts are very hair trigger in their preliminary injunctions as well as makeing them insanely broad (wikipedia.de was not linking to the page in question and as worded the injunction would have banned linking to google). Remeber the injuntion was granted without notice being served on the german wikipedia chapter.

Court are part of the state. Their actions reflect on the state. When brazil's courts had a go at youtube that was brazil blocking youtube.

[Gurdur]

..... Court are part of the state. Their actions reflect on the state. When brazil's courts had a go at youtube that was brazil blocking youtube.

Geni, I really wish you would post in English. That being said, you ignore the huge difference between a court acting on an injunction being sought by a private citizen, and a court acting on behalf of the state. There is a huge difference between the two cases, which you have evaded noticing.

[Beerina]

"I, someone in power, who wants to remain in power by dancing around in front of the voters, here suggest (emits a stream of vocalizations), and therefore we should censor this particular political speech."


:rolleyes:

[Chaos]

You think the courts wouldn't have shut down wikipedia if they had the power to do so? German courts are very hair trigger in their preliminary injunctions as well as makeing them insanely broad (wikipedia.de was not linking to the page in question and as worded the injunction would have banned linking to google). Remeber the injuntion was granted without notice being served on the german wikipedia chapter.

And you base this claim on your extensive research into German jurisdiction, I suppose?

Or is this just a case of someone being hair trigger in their condemnation of other countries, as well as making them insanely broad?:boggled:

[geni]

And you base this claim on your extensive research into German jurisdiction, I suppose?

Or is this just a case of someone being hair trigger in their condemnation of other countries, as well as making them insanely broad?:boggled:

Are you trying to claim that it is otherwise? It is based on the feedback from germans commenting on events. Also not the first time this has happened.

[geni]

Geni, I really wish you would post in English. That being said, you ignore the huge difference between a court acting on an injunction being sought by a private citizen, and a court acting on behalf of the state. There is a huge difference between the two cases, which you have evaded noticing.

Not really (private citizen? the guy is an MP?). How the courts react is decided by the legislation of the state. Under US law for example he would be considered a public figure and it would likely be suggested that he could do very little. Under UK law he would have had a hard time getting the injunction but little problem in winning any resulting lible case (so in the UK while the libel system may be deeply damageing to free speach you do in theory at least get a chance to defend yourself).

In adition such orders only have any validity since they are backed by the state.

Perphaps we should simplify. Suppose a state set up a situation where any site could be blocked if a private individual asked for any reason. Would you still argue that the state wasn't blocking the site?

[dudalb]

I am not a big Wikipedia fan but the German Action is drop dead stupid.
This is what some of us mean by "Nanny Government".

[Chaos]

Are you trying to claim that it is otherwise? It is based on the feedback from germans commenting on events. Also not the first time this has happened.

Your claim, you prove it. That´s how it works.

[geni]

Your claim, you prove it. That´s how it works.

Prove oh dear.

Well lets look at a couple of cases. The Tron hacker case when an order was awarded against wikipedia (which for obvious reasons the wikimedia foundation ignored) rather rapiadly and without telling wikipedia until after the order was granted (5 days after although that can safely be assumed to be accidental since it seems doubtful that trying to send such order via russia is standard practice).

A second order was then awarded aginst the german wikimedia chapter.

Now compareing this case to english derived common law is somewhat tricky since common law would likely regard there as being no case to answer however it generaly demands that notice be given (US consisution tends to stress this even further) and in this case it was not.

Events in the current case transpired in much the same way (except the person in question would have a case under common law). Again an injunction with no warning.

Now you can argue against this but would need to be able to show that the german courts were acting against wikipedia and the german wikipedia chapter in a highly atypical manner.