Acquittal of German Wikipedia

Germany. by Raven42rac · 2006-02-09 02:08 · Score: -1, Offtopic

Germany is just weird with their speech laws. Anything Nazi related is a huge no-no.

--
I hate sigs.

Re:Germany. by Doener · 2006-02-09 02:12 · Score: 0

In this case it has nothing to do with Anti-Nazi propaganda law but with personal rights, which are also very strong in Germany.
Re:Germany. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-09 02:12 · Score: 0

sounds fun ... good for wikipedia , that babelfish translation is horrendous. Any germans reading want to translate slightly better for us poor US readers?

thanks
Re:Germany. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-09 02:13 · Score: 0

Germany is just weird with their speech laws. Anything Nazi related is a huge no-no.

and how does your statement relate to the article? Did you even read it?
Re:Germany. by Doener · 2006-02-09 02:24 · Score: 2, Informative

BTW: An IMHO good article abaout Free Speech in Germany from the stern magazine in German language you can find here: http://www.stern.de/politik/ausland/:Deutsche-Tabu s-Engholm-Badewanne/555064.html Babelfish: http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pag econtent?lp=de_en&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.stern.de%2F politik%2Fausland%2F%3ADeutsche-Tabus-Engholm-Bade wanne%2F555064.html
Re:Germany. by PinkyDead · 2006-02-09 02:25 · Score: 1

Godwin's Law.

--
Genesis 1:32 And God typed :wq!
Re:Germany. by mjbkinx · 2006-02-09 10:36 · Score: 1

Germany is just weird with their speech laws. Anything Nazi related is a huge no-no.
And your basis for this statement is...?
I mean, have you ever been to Germany? Read German press? Watched German TV?
You're not allowed to deny the Holocaust in Germany. You're also not allowed to display a swastika if it's not in a historic, educational or art context, i.e. you mustn't raise a nazi flag in front of your house if it's not for, say, a movie set. Some selected nazi symbols, e.g. the SS runes or shouting "Sieg Heil" with a raised arm fall under similar restrictions. You're not allowed to print copies of "Mein Kampf", but that's because the state of Bavaria claims the copyright and doesn't give permission, not because of a specific law.
It's thoroughly tought in school, a common subject of documentaries, magazine articles and movies, and a pretty normal topic in my social environment, which leads me to the conclusion that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Dead Hacker by JPribe · 2006-02-09 02:10 · Score: 1

Wasn't it already decided his name was out there for all to see anyway???

--

Why go fast when you can go anywhere? O|||||||O

Re:Dead Hacker by cwebb1977 · 2006-02-09 02:13 · Score: 1

Yes, it was. And pretty much every report about wikipedia being told not to mention the name included the name. haha.

--
www.weberseite.at
Re:Dead Hacker by decepty · 2006-02-09 04:37 · Score: 1

It wasn't the 'visibility' of the name that was the issue. His parents had trademaked his name/pseudonym and were planning to release a book about him.

--
Be careful! Bears shouldn't consume large furry dogs.

Now would be a good time... by greppling · 2006-02-09 02:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

...to remove the name from article, IMHO. It was important to defend the right to give the name. But the name does not add anything to the article, and if it hurts the feeling of those closely involved, there is a good case for not mentioning it.

Just because you CAN mention the name, this doesn't mean you have to.

Re:Now would be a good time... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-09 02:15 · Score: 5, Insightful

How is someone's real name not relevant to an article about that person? You can't change history just because you are ashamed of your son.
Re:Now would be a good time... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-09 02:23 · Score: 0

I agree, and furthermore believe someone should either post the name involved here, or link to a copy of the wikipedia entry that contains the name. Information wants to be free.
Re:Now would be a good time... by l0ungeb0y · 2006-02-09 02:28 · Score: 2, Funny

You know you're right and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter!

The truth hurts sometimes... so in those cases, we should just not mention the truth.
You know, to make sure no one gets offended, or sniffly about anything.

Perhaps our helpfull Government could do something to protect us from this thing called "truth" and the nefarious rise of factual information dissemination that has been causing everyone so much grief since the adoption of this here intarweb thingy.
Re:Now would be a good time... by nietsch · 2006-02-09 02:29 · Score: 1

Very true. The last time this discussion came around, someone remarked that some people do no notice how cruel they get when you stick very stricktly to your principles. That and a low empathy/self-improtance ratio ('my right to say whatever I like is much more important than caring for your feelings)

It's a pity though that we'll probably get the same discussion here again.

--
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
Re:Now would be a good time... by Doener · 2006-02-09 02:41 · Score: 2, Informative

Backround to this: The parants own a travel agency in Berlin and think customers will absence if they know about the son's death because they don't know how to react to this in front of his parents.
Re:Now would be a good time... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-09 02:42 · Score: 0

I agree, and furthermore believe you should post your credit card numbers, address, and all of your usernames & passwords. No, no, you first, I insist.
"Information wants to be free", MY ARSE.
Re:Now would be a good time... by l4m3z0r · 2006-02-09 02:54 · Score: 1

where is the moderation for -1 spineless?
Re:Now would be a good time... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-09 03:02 · Score: 0

Thank you for explaining the joke.
Re:Now would be a good time... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-09 03:06 · Score: 0

Just because you can hack doesn't mean you have to.
Re:Now would be a good time... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-09 03:20 · Score: 0

You're welcome, but I wasn't explaining any joke. If you're the AC I responded to, then perhaps in future you could help out by making your jokes funny? Or at the very least, do something to distinguish your jokes from the sort of stupid slogan slinging that passes for rhetoric around here. Thanks.
Re:Now would be a good time... by Kjella · 2006-02-09 04:28 · Score: 1

How is someone's real name not relevant to an article about that person?

Because he never did anything significant under that name, and because whatever his surname is, it is completely irrelevant to the history of Tron. I'm sure you could also mention that he used Colgate toothpaste, it could be a fact but not a meaningful one.

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Re:Now would be a good time... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-09 05:24 · Score: 0

Without his real name, you can't trace him back to his family. Whether they want to admit it or not, his family is a significant part of his life and had major effects on it. Should we suggest that wikipedia also remove the real names of Madonna and Prince? If I was related to Madonna I probably wouldn't want to be connected to her either.
Re:Now would be a good time... by compass46 · 2006-02-09 05:35 · Score: 1

Huh? You're not one of those people who goes through life insisting they be reffered to by their /. nick are you?
Re:Now would be a good time... by genner · 2006-02-09 06:50 · Score: 1

Huh? You're not one of those people who goes through life insisting they be reffered to by their /. nick are you?

I didn't insist. It just worked out that way.
Re:Now would be a good time... by Castar · 2006-02-09 10:55 · Score: 1

Perhaps our helpfull Government could do something to protect us from this thing called "truth" and the nefarious rise of factual information dissemination

They're doing their best!

--
I yearn for you tragically. A. T. Tappman, Chaplain, U.S. Army.
Re:Now would be a good time... by epee1221 · 2006-02-09 15:56 · Score: 1

Why the **** do you need to know about his family? Their identities probably aren't relevant. You can get by with just descriptions. Example: If you want to know how my interest in music developed, all you really need to know is that my parents are band directors. You don't need to know their names, their schools, or even what city they live near.

--
"The use-mention distinction" is not "enforced here."

different!=weird by igny · 2006-02-09 02:12 · Score: 1

ehough said

--
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. - Yogi Berra

Re:different!=weird by Raven42rac · 2006-02-09 02:18 · Score: 1

Actually, I could write a long winded and asinine post saying they are one in the same, but meh. I didn't say weird was bad, just weird/different. JOMO.

--
I hate sigs.

Misrepresentation by soccerisgod · 2006-02-09 02:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

de.wikipedia.org was never threatened with a shutdown injunction. The injunction was directed at prohibiting www.wikipedia.de, the website of the german wikipedia dependance, to link to de.wikipedia.org. www.wikipedia.de itself has no encyclopedical content whatsoever.

It seems to me the german wikipedia people are trying to (ab)use this situation to their advantage. They refuse to remove a potentially harmful (to the relatives) and entirely irrelevant information from an article and make a big fuss about being threatened in their very existance. Makes you wonder what they're up to.

--
If a train station is a place where a train stops, what's a workstation?

Re:Misrepresentation by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-09 02:29 · Score: 0

Many of the German Wikipedians tried to correct AP and Matt Moore, an US AP writer from the Frankfurt office. He was the first who started this rumor.

There are two injunctions:

a) one against Wikimedia Deutschland: "Do not link from wikipedia.de to de.wikipedia.org"

b) one against Wikimedia Foundation: "Do not tell the civil name of Boris Floricic".
Re:Misrepresentation by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-09 02:36 · Score: 0

I strongly disagree. Their very existence was threatened not by their stubbornness, but by the possability that they could be censored. The purpose of any true encyclopedia is to record information about the world, be it angering or damaging to some people. The dissemination of facts is its primary objective. The feelings of the people connected to the article should _not_ be considered in any way. (Obviously, with exceptions made for the privacy of minors). Bravo to the german wikipedia for sticking to their guns. They should publish the truth, the _whole_ truth, and nothing but the truth.
Re:Misrepresentation by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-09 02:39 · Score: 0

Hi there, I am a harmless person that just wonders what your name is so that we can send you an inj^K^K^Kflowers! Many greetings from snowy Ger^K^K^KIsland!
Re:Misrepresentation by soccerisgod · 2006-02-09 02:46 · Score: 1

The information this whole thing is about is entirely irrelevant to those that want to learn about this Tron person who in his days of glory was never known by his real name, only his alias. On the other hand, it can easily be used to annoy, stalk and/or torment his relatives, particularily his parents. It serves no actual use to any viewer of that encyclopedia, and it is irresponsible and reckless to publish it without good cause. It's the job of an encyclopedia to publish RELEVANT information, not just any bit they just accidently happen to come by. That aside, as a publisher of some sort, they do have a responsibility for their content, and IMHO they've failed in that.

--
If a train station is a place where a train stops, what's a workstation?
Re:Misrepresentation by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-09 03:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

They refuse to remove a potentially harmful (to the relatives) and entirely irrelevant information from an article and make a big fuss about being threatened in their very existance. Makes you wonder what they're up to.

Makes you wonder what they're up to? What about writing a complete encyclopedia that mentions a persons name in an article about a person?

Frankly, it's quite ridiculous to think that an encyclopedia article about a person shouldn't mention his name. An encyclopedia is supposed to be neutral: thus, not including someone's name out of respect to his family is bias, and therefore wrong. It's wholly against their principles of free and non-biased information to remove someone's name simply because someone wants them to.

Instead of being skeptical about their intentions, which we all already know since they have never shown to be for anything else, why don't we applaud them for being able to take a beating to uphold their principles instead?
Re:Misrepresentation by njerseyguy · 2006-02-09 03:07 · Score: 1

The real name of the subject of an article is relevant almost by definition. The encyclopedia should be able to function as a launching point for further investigation by the reader. The dual purposes of the reference section are (1) to allow verification of the accuracy of information and (2) to enable further research. The article should not merely say "A man existed, who went my such-and-such aliases, and did X, Y, and Z". It should identify the man. It should state that "Bill Johnson did X,Y, and Z". The name of the subject is highly relevent. The harrassment of people (or the relatives/friends/aquaintinces) who hold important places in history or current events is an unfortunate repercussion of encyclopedias, newspapers, and many other sources of information.
Re:Misrepresentation by n2art2 · 2006-02-09 03:10 · Score: 1

Are you crazy? Not relevant? Talk about opinionated statements. Stick to the facts. That is what an encyclopedia is all about. The facts. The facts are, that the guy has a real name, and if someone is doing research on him, for say, an essay for college, having the person's real name allows said student to do more research about the person who engaged in such acts. Thus, making their report much more concise and informative. Come to think of it, that is what an encycolpedia is all about too. Being informative. Parent's should not be ashamed of their kid. That is their fault. What their son did is public record. It happened. If they are ashamed it should be of themselves, because it is them who failed their son, not everyone else.

--
Self proclaimed wannabe geek. You know how it is. Most of us who read this stuff probably fit in that category.
Re:Misrepresentation by Jetekus · 2006-02-09 03:19 · Score: 1

Of course it is relevant information. If a murderer/conman/insurance scammer/etc asked all of the world's media to only refer to him by a codename he randomly made up, no-one would listen to him.
Why should a hacker get this luxury?
Re:Misrepresentation by FhnuZoag · 2006-02-09 03:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

And in any case, as of this moment, Boris Floricic is far more notable for this silly business about his name than for what he actually did in his life. Even if the name wasn't relevant before, it certainly is now.
Re:Misrepresentation by soccerisgod · 2006-02-09 03:27 · Score: 1

So if I were to write an article about you, detailing every aspect of your life, especially who you had/have (kinky?) sex with (especially without your significant other knowning), that'd be ok too, because it's just information and if you had sex with someone else while in a relationship it's your fault anyway, right?

Sorry, but that logic is flawed in so many ways I don't know where to start. It's the same kind of reckless irresponsibility that makes newspapers print material they know will cause massive uproars. Anyone who publishes information has a responsibility not to needlessly cause harm.

Printing the name of that guy doesn't help you research his life because what relevant deeds he did, he did as Tron and not as Boris F., and there's no article about a Boris F. you could check out for further reference, so that argument doesn't count either. And if you're writing a book, you'd check court records or ask his friends which are easily identified and found.

--
If a train station is a place where a train stops, what's a workstation?
Re:Misrepresentation by robthebob · 2006-02-09 03:45 · Score: 1

So if I were to write an article about you, detailing every aspect of your life, especially who you had/have (kinky?) sex with (especially without your significant other knowning), that'd be ok too, because it's just information and if you had sex with someone else while in a relationship it's your fault anyway, right?
Is there anything interesting about 'me'? If so, then yes, everything about this person should be recorded in an encyclopedia. You can't seriously be suggesting that censoring information to protect a few peoples' feelings is a good idea can you?
Re:Misrepresentation by slavemowgli · 2006-02-09 05:01 · Score: 1

Huh? That's got to be one of the most trollish posts I've read today. How can you possibly see something sinister in defending yourself when you're sued (as opposed to just saying "yes, sir, of course, sir, our pleasure, sir, won't happen again, sir")?

Stop the xenophobia, please.

--
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
Re:Misrepresentation by n2art2 · 2006-02-09 05:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

So if I were to write an article about you, detailing every aspect of your life, especially who you had/have (kinky?) sex with (especially without your significant other knowning), that'd be ok too, because it's just information and if you had sex with someone else while in a relationship it's your fault anyway, right?
Sorry, but that logic is flawed in so many ways

Absolutely, I have no problem with that what so ever. Of course the difference is where fact and fiction collide. Proof of fact bares out some information, while only speculation can bare out some of the topics you pointed out. There is also the issue of braking the law. Violating laws, takes away a level of personal rights. In fact you give up those rights by braking the law.

That and your comments don't even relate, because you would have to state it something more like this. . .

"So if I were to write an article about your son, detailing every aspect of his life that relates to the violation and conviction of braking the law, especially who he had/have (kinky?) sex with (especially without his significant other knowning)that was illegal in nature, that'd be ok too, because it's just information that is in the public domain and if he had sex with someone else illegally while in a relationship it's your fault anyway, right?"

Then your comment might actually hold water, but then again it wouldn't change my point anyway. Your comments are related to potential slander, and the effect as directed towards me and my rights in relation to what you might right. However this is discussing a relative's discomfort/embarassment of being associated with the person in the article. If you intern was elluding to the feelings of my wife being embarassed to be associated with me because my name was used in such a publication, then the issue is still, "under what right does my wife have over my name and her association and discomfort in relation to it being published?"

--
Self proclaimed wannabe geek. You know how it is. Most of us who read this stuff probably fit in that category.
Re:Misrepresentation by jrockway · 2006-02-09 07:07 · Score: 2, Funny

If you were writing an encyclopedia article about me, that would be relevant information. It would be your obligation to include it.

And plus if I'm dead and you write it, I'm really not going to be offended. Because, you know, I'm DEAD.

--
My other car is first.
Re:Misrepresentation by Nurseman · 2006-02-09 08:31 · Score: 1

"Sorry, but that logic is flawed in so many ways I don't know where to start. It's the same kind of reckless irresponsibility that makes newspapers print material they know will cause massive uproars. Anyone who publishes information has a responsibility not to needlessly cause harm."
Gotta disagree. By your statement, you think factual reporting should be curtailed if it will hurt someones feelings ? This person, like it or not, was a celebrity". Do you think Scott Petersons name should not be printed, because it will cause greif to his parents ? Do you thinkthe Dutch should not print cartoons, because it will cause harm ? I consider myself VERY conservative, but you are awfully close to censorship. Who decides what is likely to "needlessly cause harm"?

--
Save a Life. Donate Blood. Please.
Re:Misrepresentation by Magic5Ball · 2006-02-09 18:26 · Score: 1

Your comments are related to potential slander, and the effect as directed towards me and my rights in relation to what you might right.

1) It's exceedingly difficult to defame a dead person.
2) Truth is usually an absolute defense against allegations of defamation.
3) Malice may or may not be interesting when considering the potentially defamatory act.
4) Germans have different values and Basic Law than much of the world.

--
There are 1.1... kinds of people.
Re:Misrepresentation by n2art2 · 2006-02-09 19:21 · Score: 1

I think we are on the same page here. You might want to re-read my previous comments.

--
Self proclaimed wannabe geek. You know how it is. Most of us who read this stuff probably fit in that category.

I don't Understand German by Bin+Naden · 2006-02-09 02:14 · Score: 1

Could a link be provided to an english (non babelfish) link?

--
There should be a "-1:Groupthink"

Re:I don't Understand German by Calvin+Deck · 2006-02-09 02:43 · Score: 1, Informative

Here you are

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,15 18,396307,00.html

The link was on the english article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tron_(hacker) under external links.

It's a basic policy not anything evil! by ami-in-hamburg · 2006-02-09 02:16 · Score: 4, Informative

Um, actually, there is stuff in the media all the time about the Nazi regime including TV, documentaries, news articles, etc...

Now back on topic, it is a German policy not to use the last name of any person involved in legal matters.

Newscaster: "Today, Santa C. was arrested on child pr0n charges in Berlin. Santa C. claims to be innocent of the crimes."

That's just the way they do things here. It seems to apply to certain other situations as well but I haven't been able to find the particulars.

Perhaps it has something to do with the public information laws or some such nonsense but I see it every night on the 6pm broadcast.

Re:It's a basic policy not anything evil! by pe1rxq · 2006-02-09 02:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

It is because in some countries even criminals (or in your example only accused) have rights.
When they have served there sentence they should be able to go on and have a live.

This is contrary to countries were sentences are not ment to correct ones behaviour but to ease the blood thirsty angry mob.

--
Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
Re:It's a basic policy not anything evil! by gowen · 2006-02-09 02:25 · Score: 1

That's basically to protect the identity of the accused, prior to acquittal or conviction. Once they're convicted, they'll cheerfully use the full name.

In this case, there is no doubt that Boris Floricic was Tron, and this injunction is solely to prevent the Floricic family being embarrassed by being associated with their criminal son. Well here's a thing, if they wanted to avoid embarrassment, perhaps they should have raised their child to be law abiding.

--
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Re:It's a basic policy not anything evil! by 'nother+poster · 2006-02-09 02:27 · Score: 1

And if he is convicted of the crime is he still refered to in a semi-anonymous way, or do they give the name? Would it be "Today Santa C. was convicted of...", or "Today, Mr Sinter Klaas, a Dutch native visiting germany for the holidays, was found guilty of..."
Re:It's a basic policy not anything evil! by hhghghghh · 2006-02-09 02:29 · Score: 1

It is because in some countries even criminals (or in your example only accused) have rights. When they have served there sentence they should be able to go on and have a live. This is contrary to countries were sentences are not ment to correct ones behaviour but to ease the blood thirsty angry mob. Which is all good and well. But the guy is dead. Dead people are typically afforded little consideration with respect to the rights normally held by, well, living people. There's a body of jurisprudence here, pretty much summed up by the "well, you can't take it with you" doctrine.
Re:It's a basic policy not anything evil! by lbrandy · 2006-02-09 02:40 · Score: 0

This is contrary to countries were sentences are not ment to correct ones behaviour but to ease the blood thirsty angry mob.

This is one of the great shortsighted positions in all of politics. I love it. So what you are saying is, hypothetically, no matter what you do, if you are able to convince the justice system that you will never do it again, then you have served your sentence and should be let free. So lets say you serially raped 150 girls, and before the trial you castrated yourself... Does that mean, since you are no longer capable of ever doing it again, that you shouldn't go to jail? Clearly the behavior has been corrected, so obviously there is no need for "rehabilitation".

Equating "punishment" with appeasing the "blood thirsty angry mob" is a classic example of $emotion-mongering and is half the reason why politics, in any country, is paralyzed and lacking in any reasonable progress. We can't get passed people pawning off under-thought-through ideas that rely entirely on emotional language and rhetoric. Punishment, along with rehabilitation, should be part and parcel of any crime, for a multitude of reasons.
Re:It's a basic policy not anything evil! by ami-in-hamburg · 2006-02-09 02:56 · Score: 3, Informative

Ok, I looked this up in the German laws. I could only find it in German so I won't bother with a link.

Apparently, there has always been an absolute right of a person to protect their honor, reputation, and likeness. However, in 1954 it was written into German law. "Persönlichkeit Rechte" "Personal Rights"

The laws are extremely long and complicated but I was able to find a summary at www.anwalt.de. Anwalt is German for attorney. It would seem that the first initial of the last name is used in order to protect the identity of persons in many situations.

In this case, a legal matter, it's used to protect the person directly involved in the case so that they can't be targeted by vigilantes or snuffing a witness. It can also be admitted to protect the identity of the family members as well.

I have also seen this applied to people who have already been convicted so I'm not sure what all the details are concerning when a full last name may or may not be used in public media. I have seen TV reports where the person was sentenced and the news reported the sentencing using only the initial.
Re:It's a basic policy not anything evil! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-09 02:58 · Score: 0

It is because in some countries even criminals (or in your example only accused) have rights. When they have served there sentence they should be able to go on and have a live.
While your notion that leaking a defendants identity can cause them problems, particularly if the public believes bad things about them, the ability of the press to release of defendants names in the U.S. may actually have been intended to protect the deffendant. One problem that could occur would be secret imprisonment, or secret trials with secret convictions, where defendants just disappear.
Re:It's a basic policy not anything evil! by MasterC · 2006-02-09 03:02 · Score: 1

When they have served there sentence they should be able to go on and have a live.

And the injuction was to keep his name quiet? I had no clue about this guy nor his real name...and I wouldn't have if an injuction wasn't brought against WP (and I subsequently read about it). Now that they raised a raucous about it: I know his name.

Congrats Mom & Dad Floricic: you promoted what you were trying to prevent!

--
:wq
Re:It's a basic policy not anything evil! by david.given · 2006-02-09 03:16 · Score: 1

So lets say you serially raped 150 girls, and before the trial you castrated yourself... Does that mean, since you are no longer capable of ever doing it again, that you shouldn't go to jail?
Bad analogy. If you're a serial rapist, you have deep violence/anger management/power issues, and even if you're unable to physically have sex, you're still dangerous.
But once you get the proper treatment, and could be proven to no longer be a danger to society, then keeping you locked up would be cruel and unusual and totally counterproductive. The only possible reason for keeping you in prison would be for revenge.
Re:It's a basic policy not anything evil! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-09 03:19 · Score: 0

Danish cartoons on Wikipedia - one of the few places you can see then, thanks to spineless Western governments not wishing to upset religious fanatics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muham mad_cartoons_controversy
Re:It's a basic policy not anything evil! by lbrandy · 2006-02-09 04:27 · Score: 1

I completely disagree. If a women is violently raped, and she has not "healed" (whatever that means), and her accuser is let out of prison, it severely and profoundly can have a negative impact on her state of mind, and life. The victims healing process, especially in cases like rape, is helped tremendously by the person being locked away and unable to harm them. It's not about revenge, at all. Such a women may never "truely" heal, but consideration must be paid to her healing as it is just as important (well, more important) as the criminals healing. You are, quite literally, removing the victim from the entire process. You are saying that the needs of the victim are irrelevant. Most societies correctly err on the side of the women, because, quite frankly, she didn't put herself in that position.

A very similar arguement is made for victims of child molestation whom, though they will never heal, depend very very very heavily on feeling "safe" as part of their recovery. Quite simply, the "rights" of the criminal are very overrated. I have no sympathy for murderers, rapists, and pedophiles. Trampling on their rights to give their victims peace of mind is fine by me. It's not about "revenge".
Re:It's a basic policy not anything evil! by randyest · 2006-02-09 05:08 · Score: 1

I'm curious as to how one could be "proven to no longer be a danger to society." How would you go about establishing proof of such a thing?

(Note that some psychiartrist's or social worker's opinion in no way constitutes proof.)

--
everything in moderation
Re:It's a basic policy not anything evil! by david.given · 2006-02-09 05:09 · Score: 1

So what you're basically saying is, do something wrong, and you lose all your intrinsic human rights? Doesn't that rather make a mockery of the word intrinsic?
And that you'd rather inflict unnecessary punishment on someone for the rest of their life simply in order to keep someone else happy, when instead you could spend a tiny fraction of the money and make sure that they're never going to hurt anybody else, never going to come in contact with any of their erstwhile victims, and you get the economic benefit of them contributing to society?
Surely any just society needs to consider all people's rights as being equally important? Isn't that what having 'rights' is, fundamentally, all about?
Re:It's a basic policy not anything evil! by pe1rxq · 2006-02-09 05:30 · Score: 1

You can't be 100% sure....
Likewise we can't be sure about you either.... (maybe you will never be a danger, maybe you already have and got away with it, maybe you are a potential serial killer)

There will always be a risk. You will have to be carefull when you let someone loose again, but that doesn't mean that it isn't the right thing to do at a certain point in time. (There are people who will never be 'cured' of certain urges and should never be let loose)
Mistakes will be made and we should learn from them and use the experience to judge better the next time.

--
Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
Re:It's a basic policy not anything evil! by pe1rxq · 2006-02-09 05:34 · Score: 1

Luckily the world isn't black and white. What happens here is not that the names are not known, you can easily get them if enquire a little. Its just enough obfuscation since most of the angry mob types are not going to take the trouble of finding out unless a name was printed on the front page and they were hit over the head with it.

--
Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
Re:It's a basic policy not anything evil! by david.given · 2006-02-09 06:16 · Score: 1

There will always be a risk. You will have to be carefull when you let someone loose again, but that doesn't mean that it isn't the right thing to do at a certain point in time.
Indeed. You need to be careful, you need to keep an eye on them, you may need to restrict their movements, but you also need to ensure that you're infringing their rights as little as possible. They may be the ones who violated the civil bargain, but it doesn't make them any less citizens.
(There are people who will never be 'cured' of certain urges and should never be let loose)
Absolutely. And if you can't produce a secured environment where they can live (and be productive) relatively happy, the only humane thing to do is to execute them. Letting them rot for the rest of their lives in a prison is not humane.
Re:It's a basic policy not anything evil! by lbrandy · 2006-02-09 06:17 · Score: 1

Sorry, but people who trample on other people's rights aren't as important to me as the people whom they trampled on. There isn't some magical line you draw in the sand and say "At this point, he is cured, and the victim is happy, and everyone is happy". That's non-worldly theoretics.

Surely any just society needs to consider all people's rights as being equally important?

No, they aren't. Not only am I saying that exactly, but that's exactly how the justice is currently set up. They commited a crime, and they lose their rights. That's the nature of the system. You cannot play by the rules, you lose some of your rights, temporarily. The system already tells criminals they are not worthy of all of their "rights". I'm not advocating anything new. I'm sayaing that you theoretical idealism of "revenge" equating with "justice for the victim" is nonsense and completely incorrect.

You still aren't dealing with the fact that the psychological impact on the victim of knowing their victimizer is behind bars is critical in the healing process. It's not -revenge-. It's a safety issue. What if said person gets out, and moves into the house next to them? Do you tell the women to suck it up and deal with it...? Or, as you say "never going to come in contact with any of their erstwhile victims"? But wait.. I thought once they paid their debt.. they had the same rights as everyone else... Are you implying, now, that they in fact do not have the right to move to the house next door? Isn't that a violation of their intrinsic rights?

Stop forgetting who the victims are.
Re:It's a basic policy not anything evil! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-09 09:17 · Score: 0

(There are people who will never be 'cured' of certain urges and should never be let loose)
Absolutely. And if you can't produce a secured environment where they can live (and be productive) relatively happy, the only humane thing to do is to execute them. Letting them rot for the rest of their lives in a prison is not humane.

Wow. Do you represent a global psychological consensus on the matter of "incurable criminals", or did you just advocate the death penalty based on the opinion of two random guys on Slashdot?

I think you may be overestimating the pain of being imprisoned. (Having never been imprisoned, I do confess that I am basically speculating here.) Interestingly, most supporters of the death penalty that I've discussed the matter with have seemed to me to be doing the opposite("What, lock him up? That isn't nearly bad enough for a guy who did .") While it's undoubtedly pretty horrible to be confined to a prison for large parts of your life(or even your entire life, assuming these "incurables" who were mentioned will actually continue to be considered such), you are still alive, and that is something. (I am well aware that many inmates commit suicide, but a person reaching suicidal depression isn't actually an indication that he wouldn't actually prefer to live if he were to think the matter through rationally. Furthermore, I'd argue that a civilized society should have a prison system that doesn't generally make people want to kill themselves.) An imprisoned person is still a sentient being who can potentially enjoy life to some extent. They can engage in various pastimes within the prison, communicate with remaining friends and family outside the prison, and perhaps most importantly, hope to be let out someday - just because you consider someone "incurable" doesn't mean they'll consider that an accurate description of themselves.

That said, I agree wholeheartedly with the first half of your post.

(I just now noticed that the "if you can't produce a secured environment where they can live (and be productive) relatively happy" part of your statement. Perhaps we can agree that the most civilized thing to do would be to provide such an environment?

The idea that people who aren't capable of being "relatively happy" should be put to death is still extremely disturbing to me, though. Would you advocate executing people if they got diagnosed with some particularly bad, presumably incurable, kind of clinical depression, to the point where there was psychological consensus that there was little chance they would ever be able to live a "relatively happy" life again?)
Re:It's a basic policy not anything evil! by david.given · 2006-02-09 11:31 · Score: 1

It's not -revenge-. It's a safety issue. What if said person gets out, and moves into the house next to them? Do you tell the women to suck it up and deal with it...?
Can you please read what I say?
I am not suggesting that dangerous people are released into society. I am not suggesting that I'm telling rape victims to 'just deal with it', and the only reason I can think why you should think I did say that is either not reading what I said, or else deliberately misunderstanding me.
If you can ensure that someone is no longer a danger to society, they can be released. He have the knowledge and technology to do that today. The process isn't pretty, and we're too squeamish to use it, but we're certainly capable of imposing some pretty draconian mental conditioning that would make it completely impossible for them to hurt someone, ever again. We are certainly capable of moving them somewhere else in the country and then keeping tabs on them so that they never become a threat to their victims, ever again. As far as the victim's concerned, that person will just vanish. As far as the perpetrator's concerned, they get told where to live, what job they can do, what activities they can indulge in, but other than that are pretty much left alone, provided they don't take off the tracking device. They'll probably get moved around if the victim ever ends up in that part of the country.
That's the crude way. The better way would be to actually fix whatever was wrong with the perpetrator that caused them to do whatever it was they did, and if you can do that you can also fix whatever problems the victim may end up with that mean that their own peace of mind is dependent on the imprisonment and mistreatment of another human being. I don't know if we can do that yet, not reliably. Hence the crude way.
But even the crude way will be more effective and probably vastly cheaper than the current prison system.
Stop forgetting who the victims are.
The victims are all the people who are affected. This includes the perpetrator. If you forget that, your justice system is fatally flawed.

How did the parents know... by LeddRokkenstud · 2006-02-09 02:17 · Score: 0, Interesting

about Wikipedia? Did they go on it and just search for their dead son's name, and magically found it?

Re:How did the parents know... by soccerisgod · 2006-02-09 02:42 · Score: 1

Doubtful. It's more likely Tron's old friends -particularly those of the Chaos Computer Club (CCC) did that.

--
If a train station is a place where a train stops, what's a workstation?
Re:How did the parents know... by bobKali · 2006-02-09 03:06 · Score: 1

As I recall, this was really about preventing his name from being used in some work of fiction (a book or movie, I don't remember which) and the use of his full name in Wiki was used to by the author to defend his use of the name.

Or something similar to that.
Re:How did the parents know... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-09 04:23 · Score: 0

So now that the family has finished with its irrelevant tangent of attacking wikipedia, hopefully they'll realize that this was a stupid defense anyway and attack the defense.

Publishing by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-09 02:19 · Score: 0

Wikipedia doesn't publish anything: the people do.

Tasaday were real! by Hao+Wu · 2006-02-09 02:30 · Score: 1, Interesting

Did you know that the Tasaday were a real tribe in the Philippines - and not a hoax? Wikipedia says so.

If Wikipedia has proven anything, it's that all of recorded history has been politicized. An illusion of objectivity is the ultimate goal that humans work toward - not truth.

Think of the sinister implications... particularly with a country like Germany and their past.

--
I suggest you read Slashdot

Re:Tasaday were real! by remmelt · 2006-02-09 02:49 · Score: 1

Are you familiar with a certain fellow by the name of Godwin? His law is knocking at your door at the moment.

Bye!

Instead of a translation: by greppling · 2006-02-09 02:34 · Score: 4, Informative

Some facts from the article not mentioned in the summary:

This decision isn't final yet, the parents will most likely appeal.

The crucial argument in the court's decision seems to have been that the personal rights of the parents were not violated, since they could not be identified by their last name. This is actually disputable, their name is pretty unique in Germany. (A search in the phone directory didn't turn up anyone with the name.)

The court did not consider the mentioning of the name a violation of Tron's own personal rights.

("Personal rights" is my translation by me of "Persoenlichkeitsrechte", which is technical term in German law speak. Maybe "Right to personal privacy" would be a better translation.)

Re:Instead of a translation: by Doener · 2006-02-09 03:12 · Score: 1, Informative

In Germany there is not only a strong "Persönlichkeitsrecht" (personal rights) but also a volunteer commitment of the big newspapers/magazines/tv stations. It is the so called "Pressekodex" of the German "Presserat" and it's much severer than the law.
Re:Instead of a translation: by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-09 09:52 · Score: 0

"The court did not consider the mentioning of the name a violation of Tron's own personal rights."

This is totally wrong. The court mentioned this at first. Trons personal rights ended with his death. After someones death there are postmortal personal right, but not even those were violated. Look here: http://www.kammergericht.de/presse/PM04_2006.htm

To say or write a persons name is funamental part of the freedom of speech. Nobody has written private details about his life in wikipedia, there are no lies about Tron in wikipedia.

Personality right don't mean that you can forbid ti anyone to say anything about you.

the man killed millions by way2trivial · 2006-02-09 02:44 · Score: -1, Troll

in large ovens in many european countries, but as he has living relatives (and may himself be alive and well in brazil!) we won't put his name here..

it starts with an H

--
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random

Re:the man killed millions by jank1887 · 2006-02-09 02:55 · Score: 1

nice to see that Godwin's Law still applies to slashdot...
Re:the man killed millions by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-09 03:10 · Score: 0

So let's put your name here.

Correction: by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-09 03:00 · Score: 1, Insightful

Wikipedia publishes what the people submit.

Re:Correction: by WurdBendur · 2006-02-09 03:14 · Score: 1

In Soviet Russia, submissions publish you!

--
SCISNE? ANUS SIMIAE!

ObFamilyGuy by Slightly+Askew · 2006-02-09 03:16 · Score: 1

... particularly with a country like Germany and their past.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany

Third Reich (1933-1945)

We were invited. Punch was served. Check with Poland. Thomas Mann left to manage a Dairy Queen.

--
Public use of any portable music system is a virtually guaranteed indicator of sociopathic tendencies. -- Zoso

mod do3n by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-09 04:32 · Score: -1, Offtopic

Wo8ld- spanning would take about 2

A body of jurisprudence? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-09 05:51 · Score: 0

pun intended?

Boris Floricic by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-09 05:59 · Score: 0

Boris Floricic is the name of the person in question.

(plus one InfoRmative) by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-09 09:57 · Score: -1, Troll

from within. Since then. More Of OpenBSD 7ersus at this point

Meta-Tags a possible solution? by schweini · 2006-02-09 10:40 · Score: 1

Since stuff like this will sooner or later always affect projects like the Wikipedia, I wondered whether a possible solution to this would be to include 'meta-tags' in the Wikipedia, that re-format content according to local jurisdictions:

In Germany, we usually only mention the initial of the last name in legal matters, in order to protect the 'image' of the accused, and i think whis is actually a good idea.

If the source-markup of Wikipedia articles would include something like:

<name context='legal'>Max Mustermann</name>

e.g. the german Wikipedia could render it as 'Max M.'.

Obviously the real name is still available for anyone who cares to dig a bit deeper, but it might appease family members and the like.

This would also come in handy for units:

<unit>6 feet 8 inches</unit>

could be converted on-the-fly to metric units this way.

Re:Meta-Tags a possible solution? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-09 22:20 · Score: 0

Nice, now you have to edit the article to know the last name...

Minor problem with that by FhnuZoag · 2006-02-09 14:04 · Score: 1

It is because in some countries even criminals (or in your example only accused) have rights. When they have served there sentence they should be able to go on and have a live.

Except for when, you know... they're dead?

Slashdot Mirror

Acquittal of German Wikipedia

92 comments