German Wikipedia Threatened w/ Injunction

TheEagleCD writes "Wikipedia.de, the German version of the popular Wikipedia Encyclopedia, is currently closed due to a German court order. A detailed account of the current controversy [en.wikipedia.org] is available, the short version is that the family of "Tron" (Boris Floricic) - a German hacker and phreaker - is trying to force Wikipedia.de from removing the family name from his entry." As I write this the site is back up, as is the tron entry that caused the whole mess. However it does appear that the entire domain was briefly shut down over one entry.

Comments

Not really

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not like the German wikipedia is taken off the net. It's just the popular domain wikipedia.de that's unavailable. de.wikipedia.org works just fine, and has all the information ready that is being debated.
It more of a side-effect of the german justice system that you're experiencing here. There are "act quickly" court orders that you need to obey, until the real case is being discussed in court. I'd bet they'll just reject to even start debating the case. Freedom of press is valued highly _in Germany_, you know.

Actual Complaint

[wangf00]

So what is their actual complaint here? Are they just mad that wikipedia posted easily findable information in an article? Or are they mad that their name is linked to a convicted criminal? Seems like wikipedia is the wrong place to divert that anger.

Re:Actual Complaint

[globalar]

According to another Wiki article, the parents originally tried to force a German publisher to remove from sale a piece of fiction that had a character with their son's handle, Tron. Allegedly, the publisher declined saying that the Wikipedia used the name. The parents now pursue Wikipedia. This is all completely based on the Wiki article, though.

Re:Actual Complaint

[parabyte]

The background here is extremely complex. I knew TRON personally, and I know many people from the german wikipedia community and the Chaos Computer Club, where TRON was active until his death. From what I see, the community has been divided in about two halves for some time regarding the issue of TRON's real name in wikipedia, even if no one appreciates the escalation. But the story is not a story of censorship or some bad guys against wikipedia, it is the story of parents of a dead hacker against ignorance and harping on about principles. The parents did not want to have the article removed, they just wanted TRONs real name to be abbreviated as Boris F., instead of the full name as it is in the wikipedia right now. Seven letters.

But for everyone who has not been involved: here is a short version of a complex story how I have experienced it:

• Boris F. was a german hacker under the pseudonym TRON, doing a lot of advanced chipcard hacking and crypto gear development
• TRON died in 1998, he probably committed suicide, but there is a slight chance he was murdered
• All german newspapers and TV covered the case, and two books were written about it, among them a novel ("Offenbarung 23") that contains a lot of bullshit that no parent wants to read about a son, especially if it is fiction; however, for marketing purposes, the author of the novel printed the full real name in the book, stating that his novel was "based" on this real case
• the parents sued the publisher/author of the book to remove the real name
• the author/publisher used as a defence that the real name can be found in the wikipedia
• the parents removed the real name from the article
• a wikipedia edit war broke out, which resulted in several locks by wikipedia admins
• the parents tried for months to convince wikipedia admins to remove the real name; of course they are aware that the name can be found in the internet at many places, but the fact it is on wikipedia was used against them in a court case, so they had to act
• in the wikipedia community, there were advocates for both sides, probably about half of the people arguing to respect the wish of the parents, the other half to keep the full real name there, for the sake of information freedom; if you speak german you can read the discussion page at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Tron_(Hack er)
• the wikipedia community finally decided to leave the name there, but the process is not a very democratic or transparent one, and even if it was, minority rights are above democratic decisions
• at the german wikimedia foundation, no one was able to really deal with the situation; instead, they basically argued "we are not responsible for the content"
• some individuals at wikipedia who had no mandate to do so dragged this thing into the press, escalating the issue out of control of the community
• the parents, their supporters and the german court machinery did their work, and now a court ordered that the domain wikipedia.de must no longer forward to the de.wikipedia any more

The question is: How could this get so far? I think, because of the ignorance and stubbornness some of the wikipedia people in Germany who decided to ignore the asking and adjuring of the parents of a dead guy on one side, and the determination of friends of TRON and supporters of the parents, who are also part of the hacker community and at some point gave up in convincing *all* of the involved wikipedians and finally helped the parents to legally proceed against wikipedia. Maybe Wikipedia underestimtated the determination of the parents because they are just, well, some parents of some dead hacker. They even ignored all ample warnings, publicly accusing the people who warned them that they are making up the legal threats, and that they do not speak for the parents. All in the name of freedom of information.

In Germany ther

Re:Actual Complaint

[Fnkmaster]

The grandparent poster makes several good points and you fail it by bringing Hitler into the argument, even in an oblique fashion. The point is that politicians and movie stars choose to live their lives in the limelight, whereas a private citizen doesn't. In this case, the notoriety of a private citizen who never used his real name in any public forum stands to adversely impact the business and personal lives of his parents, who have already suffered immensely due to what sounds like his untimely death.

I can sympathize with the parents here. And I think any reasonable person could. Just saying "sucks to be them" doesn't really feel right. Whether the nature of the legal remedy or the path they have pursued for recourse is right is a different question.

In the US, their only recourse would be under libel laws. But Germany has a different legal system with different social and legal standards for privacy. And in Germany, it is considered illegal to disclose the full identity of somebody in the light of accusing them of criminal acts in a public forum if they are not a public figure.

So should Wikipedia/the Wikimedia Foundation respect court rulings in Germany regarding content? What about rulings from other countries, whether free and democratic or much more oppressive? Where do you draw that line? Should they respect the ruling in this particular case due to the considerations of the parents and the serious harm that may be caused to several innocent people by the publication of this material, regardless of whether they should, in general, respect such rulings?

I don't think the answers to all these questions are clearcut. An encyclopedia inevitably will face questions of the definition of libel, the right to privacy, and so on in the society that it is published in. But what happens when an encyclopedia exists outside the context of any one society, like Wikipedia, and is edited by people from many cultures and many nations collaboratively, and can be accessed by all over the Internet?

One answer could be "let's just apply the American norms across the board, respect American law, and to hell with everything else". The problem then is that the Wikimedia Foundation can be seen as an outlaw organization in a mainstream European country like Germany (let's forget about places like Iran for now).

The strongest argument to me seems to be the common carrier argument - it is impossible for Wikipedia to police the edits made by every editor from every country, and in particular to ensure that said posts comply with the laws of their particular country of origin. If Germany has a problem with the content of that page, they should go after the Germans who posted it, over whom they have jurisdiction. If a non-German wrote it, and it's hosted in a non-German country, however, then I don't really see why Germany should have any jurisdiction whatsoever, just because a .de domain redirects to it and the Foundation associated with the "hosting" or common carrier site happens to have a German branch.

In the same vein, if such posts are outside of German jurisdiction, they shouldn't be referenceable in a German court as proof of anything with respect to a case involving the family's privacy rights.

What this is (apparently) really about

[mrchaotica]

Last paragraph of Wikipedia's [EN] entry:

The Austrian online magazine "futurezone" interviewed Andy Müller-Maguhn on 19 January 2006 about the case and its backgrounds. Maguhn admitted that the true reason behind the incident is a fictitious work recently published by a German author in which the main actor has the same (civil) name as Tron. The parents sent a protest to the publisher but were turned down with the argument that the German Wikipedia is using the name as well. Müller-Maguhn then asked the German Wikipedia to remove the name, but was turned down for a number of reason, including failure to present proof that he is entitled to speak and act on behalf of the parents.

So basically, because they want to stop some guy from using the name for a fictional character they're trying to stop Wikipedia from using it to refer to the actual, original person.

W. T. F?! -- and, more importantly, why don't they sue the publisher?!!

Re:Actually,

[Captain Perspicuous]

Just wanted to add this: It's pretty easy to block a server quickly in many countries with a provisional injunction (at least it's easy in most european countries). But as soon as such an injunction has to cross a national border, it becomes much more tricky. So the distributed nature of the internet has made it easier to keep information out there (or more difficult to stop info, whatever is your view point), and this principle is what we can see at work here.

Hurray for US free speech rights, now automatically exported to every other nation on the planet*.
(*exceptions apply for walled China, Saudi Arabia and Tunesia...)

Bogus

[tmandry]

From the Wikipedia article:

The order prohibits the Foundation from mentioning the full name on any website under the domain "wikipedia.org".
And how is Wikimedia going to carry that out? Censor the name from going into pages? That would severely hurt their credibility while being ineffective (there are so many ways around computer censors that it's not even funny).

Maguhn admitted that the true reason behind the incident is a fictitious work recently published by a German author in which the main actor has the same (civil) name as Tron. The parents sent a protest to the publisher but were turned down with the argument that the German Wikipedia is using the name as well.
In that case it was, as is clearly stated, fictitious. It could have easily misrepresented 'Tron', while Wikipedia is (or strives to be) factual. How can they tell us to stop telling the truth? More importantly, does this mean any old criminal can demand that his name be removed from Wikipedia? Who has the power here - a foreign country that Wikimedia isn't even based in, or Wikimedia itself? Where do freedom of speech/press end and let privacy and the whims of different countries begin to take control?

Sounds a whole lot like the internet control controversy again to me.

See, now that's bizarre

[Anonymous Coward]

So you sue someone to stop them from mentioning your name.

That just brings up all kinds of odd questions. Like: Is wikipedia allowed to talk about the fact they got sued? And if they do talk about being sued, are they allowed to mention the names of the people who sued them? Since, you know, it's apparently banned to mention these people's last names, that's why wikipedia's in court in the first place. How does wikipedia report on the court case? Do they have to just say "we have been sued by somebody, we can't tell you who, but their name begins with F"? Are they allowed to publish documents, like court summons and such, from the case but only so long as they black out the names of the plaintiffs with a magic marker?

Legal Status

[RebelGuys2]

I was editing on Wikipedia when the legal notice started to surface on the English Wikipedia entry for this individual, which was quickly deleted by English Wikipedia Administrators. Last I checked, all Wikipedia entries do not include Boris's last name, and though our opinions differ on the matter, most of us refer to Boris as "Boris F---" or something of the like in Discussion and Talk pages. The main dilemma, of course, remains as to whether Germany has jurisdiction over our content. Legally, they do not, as the Wikimedia servers are hosted in Florida. However, there is precedent that any individual involved in writing this article can be immediately detained upon ever setting foot in Germany. I can't remember the details, but an Australian man writing revisionist Nazi theories was arrested for publishing his works elsewhere. We can continue to post up "Floricic," or however it's spelled, on Wikipedia if we wished. However, I think that the Administrators were justified in making the page deletes due to legal threats. Where do we draw the line, though? If Iran ordered us to not write about something, I'd seriously doubt most administrators on Wikipedia would take drastic action. I seriously doubt the U.S. would ever consider extradition (not to mention the public outcry) if an American was shipped away because of an anti-free speech German law. The bottom line is: legally, Wikipedia has no need to listen to Germany. However, what will happen when one of the article's editors, or a member of the Wikimedia foundation, sets foot in Germany?

Re:If they can do this over the issue of a name

[slavemowgli]

Calm down, it's just a preliminary injunction. These are relatively easy to get pretty much everywhere, and it doesn't say anything about what the final decision will be.

And for that matter... the whole case is clearly ridiculous, so it will get thrown out quickly enough. There's no need to rave about how "no single country can shut down information on the internet" and how "some Germans still want to rewrite history" - in fact, the last statement seems to be borderline Godwinesque, although I may be misinterpreting it.

So, just relax.

Re:Just hot air

[hweimer]

Wikipedia is (mostly) hosted in the US. The German court does not have jurisdiction. End of story. They can do whatever they want to the wikipedia.de domain, but de.wikipedia.org as well as the actual content is totally unaffected.

I wouldn't be too sure about that. If Jimbo decides to ignore this issue, Wikimedia Germany might face paying fines and damages since the original offender is out of reach. German law has some provisions allowing this and they are enforced quite often, especially when dealing with links to sites in another jurisdiction.

they are much harder to get elsewhere

[Trepidity]

In the U.S., for example, a preliminary injunction prohibiting publication of material alleged but not actually (yet) found to be illegal is called "prior restraint", and an a high bar must be met for a court to issue such an injunction.

Re:they are much harder to get elsewhere

[Anonymous Coward]

That depends on why the material is illegal. In the case of copyright infringement, all it takes is one DMCA notice, you don't even need to get a court involved.

I wish people would stop holding the USA up as some kind of model the rest of the world should model themselves on when it comes to freedom of speech. The fact is, you only have freedom of speech until you piss off somebody with lots more money than you. Examples: RIAA, MPAA, CoS,...

Re:Mod parent down.

[stixman]

What the heck does this to do with WW2?

I agree, it's just easy to do when all that some people know about Germany IS WWII. Therefore, everything "bad" that happens in Germany gets an automatic reference to Naziism.

It's a bit hypocritical to talk about telling the rest of the world what to do given the current state of the USA's foreign "policy".

Hitler's intentions for the world were clearly stated, both in his speeches and in his book. The new danger is better disguised...

Re:considering his real name was in WIRED magazine

[smurfsurf]

> He also was a convicted of a crime so his name was a matter of public record in germany.

The thing is this: The people's right on privacy is highly protected. This includes their identity. Media is not allowed to disclose the identity of some random guy without his consent. This includes anyone in a trial and also convicted people. The only exception are public figures. And a person will not become a public figure because the media says so or report on him. It does not matter that his name is in the court files.

You will not find any newspaper article about Tron's trail that does not refer to him as Boris F. You will not find his full name in the media.

Now, wikipedia has his full name in the article. They were asked to change this by Tron's parents. They declined, partly by stating that Tron is a public figure, so they are allowed to do this. Obviously the parents disagree.

They ask a judge for a preliminary injunction until this matter is decided upon in court. He grants it as he values the negativ impact off revealing Tron's identity higher as wikipedia's interest in giving the full name.

The injunction orders wikipedia.de to not show the name. The german wikipedia chapter decides to turn of the redirection from wikipedia.de to wikipedia.org. They could have edited the article in question, but did not.

If in the US people's right on privacy is valued less, then be it. I rather like the german version.

The injuction is against wikipedia.de, not any US entity. So spare us your cant.

Re:WTF?

[jrockway]

No, I don't see the difference. GP says:

>> Say the wrong thing, and we'll put you away!

You say:

> You cannot deny that the holocaust has happened.

Those are the exact same things. Saying the wrong thing is, "The holocaust never happened." If you say that they'll put you away. That's not free speech. That's a "gestapo-esque" police state.

Re:Expert translation

[Anonymous Coward]

>>Arguably it would have been a better translation if, perhaps, it wasn't written in pseudo-German.

>Given the quality of babelfish's typical translation, pseudo-German is just as good as the real thing...

Reason for the latter might be that already most of the Germans aren't German-proof anymore. They mixed up German and English just for a too long period.

Re:Direct link?

[legalize.ganja.now.]

from www.wikipedia.de:

[...] wurde dem Verein Wikimedia Deutschland [...] untersagt, von dieser Domain auf die deutschsprachige Ausgabe der freien Enzyklopädie Wikipedia (wikipedia.org) weiterzuleiten.

which translates to roughly the following: sorry, at the moment we are not allowed to redirect you to wikipedia.org ;-)

Re:Hurray?

[ultranova]

I am sincerely interested any examples of speech that you wish were legal in the US.

Well, I may be wrong here, not being US national and not knowing your laws by heart, and if so someone please correct me, but... Doesn't the DMCA make it illegal to tell others how to bypass effective copy protection mechanisms ?

Kinda sick actually: the nazis can celebrate genocide openly, but woe be to anyone who's talk might possibly decrease potential profits of a corporation.