Politician Forces German Wikipedia Off the Net

Stephan Schulz writes "A German Member of parliament for a left-wing party, Lutz Heilmann, has obtained a preliminary injunction against the local chapter of the Wikimedia foundation, Wikimedia Deutschland e.V., forbidding the forwarding of the popular http://wikipedia.de to the proper http://de.wikipedia.org. Apparently Heilmann is not happy with the fact that his Wikipedia article (English version) contains information on his work for the former GDR Stasi, the much-hated internal secret service. Wikimedia Germany displays a page explaining the situation, and has announced that it will file an objection to get the injunction lifted. The German Wikipedia has more than 800,000 pages, and is hosted, like all Wikimedia projects, by the Florida-based Wikimedia Foundation, and hence beyond the effective reach of at least German politicians and judges."

Comments

Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Opportunist]

She knows how well that works.

Frankly, I am living close to Germany and until now I didn't know that guy. Ok, I'm not the leftmost person on this planet, but maybe he just wasn't that important. Now, though, I do. And I know that he's probably not the nicest person to be around.

I also wonder how many have considered voting for his party and now, learning about this and what kind of people are inside it, won't touch it.

Not to mention that, if you really insist, you can still choose a different copy of Wikipedia to get information about him. Ok, granted, not in German, but is there anyone in Germany using the internet and NOT able to read English?

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Brian Gordon]

I don't think anyone's really surprised that this came out of Germany. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_Federal_Republic_of_Germany
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Germany#Freedom_of_Speech
It's scary really. I said only a few days ago that I would never visit or stop over in Germany.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[lukas84]

It's the same in almost every European state - most anti racism laws undermine Free Speech.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[corsec67]

most anti racism laws undermine Free Speech.

Could you have a anti-racism law that doesn't undermine free speech?
One of the basic premises of free speech is that offensive speech should be allowed.

A big part of anti-racism laws is to prevent offensive speech as it relates to race, right?

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Brian Gordon]

Well of course; laws saying that you can't discriminate when hiring don't undermine free speech, though that same employer should be able to have a ferociously racist personal blog. But the point lukas84 is making is that anti-racist-speech laws violate free speech and are bad laws.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[HappySmileMan]

Hitler wasn't really that left wing, he had some left wing policies but overall I'd definitely not call him left-wing.

Olame-a "I'll give everyone 5000$" is trying to do the same in America.

oicwutudidthar, how clever, I'm sure you've influenced everyone's vote for 2012, now that we know that he is both lame and trying to emulate Hitler/Stalin/Mao, you're proof of his plans for genocide are very convincing.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[lukas84]

Well, the whole McCainObama Election thing was very interesting to watch from here (Switzerland).

I'll have to admit that i didn't particularly like McCain, but Obama seemed worse - he wants to introduce most of the problems Europe has to the US, which so far i saw as a better country as they didn't seem to make the same mistakes as most European countries (they made others, of course).

The problem that seems to be the same here and in the US is that politics is more often steered into the subjective "People" direction than an objective "Policies" direction.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Alex Belits]

anti-racist-speech laws violate free speech

True.

and are bad laws.

Not necessarily so. Elevating free speech over other rights is a part of American ideology, however it is not universally accepted, certainly not in Europe or Asia.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Actually the anti-racism laws are used to suppress certain political viewpoints. They're not used against individuals, but mostly against political parties.

Or at least that's the case here. This was obvious before any such law was passed, but the lefties were in power.

For example associating "socialism" with "national-socialism". THEN they will invoke said laws. Associating islam, an ideology stating DIRECTLY that "there must always be war" with war, that will get those laws invoked. An ideology with hate spewing mosques everywhere, the ideology of the most hate filled and intolerant places on this earth, complaining about that, that will get "anti-hate" laws invoked.

Saying some unpopular group should get killed, like saying Americans should get slaughtered in Iraq, and another few 9/11's should happen, will be protected as "free speech" until death.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[lukas84]

Switzerland still exists.

But they are starting to ban pornography on ALL mobile phones here (wonder how that works on internet enabled smartphones) and of course violent video games.

It's all downhill from here. The hippies are winning :)

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[narcberry]

I dunno, Hitler may have said he was a socialist, but he didn't throw very many parties. I'd say he wasn't a people person, but I did not know him personally.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Jerry]

For Americans "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech,"

abridge /brd/ [uh-brij]
-verb (used with object), abridged, abridging.
1. to shorten by omissions while retaining the basic contents: to abridge a reference book.
2. to reduce or lessen in duration, scope, authority, etc.; diminish; curtail: to abridge a visit; to abridge one's freedom.
3. to deprive; cut off.

Defining someone else's utterance or writing as "hate" speech (politically incorrect) and then outlawing it is an example of abridgment, which destroys freedom of speech. That political expediency can be abused by some other group which may happen to gain power to make illegal those who, for example, publicly state that God does not exist, thus silencing YOUR freedom of speech.

A similar farce exists in China, where freedom of speech and religion are guaranteed under their constitution but not respected by those in power, so people are regularly fined and/or imprisoned for speaking against the government or for practicing a religion not recognized by the party in power.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[IceMonkiesForSenate]

Using that logic North Korea is a democracy. After all, what does DPRK stand for? What Hitler created was not socialist, or communist. In fact he hated those forms of government (part of the reason he attacked Russia in the first place). Germany during the late 30's and 40's was a fascist regime, as was Italy. Yes, Hitler's rhetoric talked of social justice, but that was what he did to get himself into power. The Germans of the time were willing to follow him because of his message of hope. In the end the NAZI party did nationalize some of the countries industry (a socialist move for sure), but to say that Hitler was a socialist is a corruption of the word. Facisim != Socialism

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[BobNET]

Did you know that North Korea real name is the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea".

The longer a country's name is, the less likely it is to be true...

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Captain Splendid]

Oh right ... it translates to "socialist".

Both Hitler and yourself can keep calling him and the nazi party socialist all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that the country was run pretty much as a Totalitarian regime focused on unilateral warfare, hyper-patriotism and strong law & order credentials, which is about as far from socialism as you can get.

Thanks for playing!

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[HappySmileMan]

And the GDR was called the German Democratic Republic. That must mean it was a democratic republic right?

I wouldn't called extreme racism, homophobia etc. left-wing.

There's also the matter of his constant public speeches about how the left-wing movements were Jewish attempts to topple him and how socialists must be destroyed for Germany to prevail.
He arrested all trade union leaders and enforced a pay freeze on all workers.
Of course he did claim prior to the election that we would do just the opposite and give workers more control, but dishonesty seemed to be one of his faults.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[the_other_chewey]

Germany serves as a reminder of what will happen to a country if you vote far-left too long.

Uhhh... what?

The head of state (and the chancellor) are from what is considered the center right. Far-left parties
never were in power. And last I checked, Germany was doing a lot better in this financial meltdown than
the US (which doesn't mean they are doing incredibly well, just a lot better).

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Say, that word, nazi, what does it mean again ? Oh right ... it translates to "socialist".

It doesn't "translate" it is a contraction for "National Socialist."

Here's an interesting quote for you - "Nazism makes out is is subversive. The most terrible white terror against people and socialism the world has ever seen takes on a socialist disguise. To this end its propaganda must develop a revolutionary facade with trappings of the Paris Commune."

Looks like their pseudo-revolutionary cover suckered you right in, even 60 years later.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[mustafap]

>Left-Wing prefers to undermine peoples freedoms for "the good cause"

>Right-Wing prefers individual freedoms over the hissy-fits of a a few minorities

Nice balanced argument. You're a 14 year old idiot, aren't you?

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[flnca]

He wants to hire a 6th. He'll never hire someone whom he dislikes because of race, so why not allow him to write that down?

Because that would be very popular among his racist buddies, and then, bam! Nazi Germany once more. In fact, in the former GDR regions, companies of racists do already exist, and they spread like wildfire in some regions. This must be stopped as soon as possible. But I guess, they are already under surveillance by the Constitution Protection. We don't want a second Nazi Germany. And you neither, I guess.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[DiniZuli]

I'm from Denmark.
Compared to many people from USA (not all), the majority of people in Denmark are "socialists" (again not everyone). All parties that we can vote for - even the ones we place on the far right on our own political scale, would belong among the democrats in USA. Nearly all political parties in Denmark, would be called leftish in USA. It has been like this for many many decades and I would say that we are doing pretty well, with our national health care system, common wealth, education, etc., etc. - I would even say we are doing better than USA. In Denmark, Nazis, racists and the like are almost always placed on the far right on the political scale.
Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mao and others like them, might have SAID that they were socialists and making leftish policies. But they weren't/didn't. They were not anywhere near it. They would like people to think so - and I can see they even got to some of you too. A shame.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[smidget2k4]

Hate speech is generally more than "politically incorrect." Usually hate speech is defined as being intended to incite violence against someone. For example, if I gave a speech and used an ethnic slur for each group of people I talked about, sure, I'd be in bad taste, but it wouldn't be hate speech. Now, if I gave that same speech minus the ethnic slurs, but was rallying the crowd and telling them they should kill these groups, that would be hate speech.

It is the same idea as not being able to yell fire in a crowded theater. You have the freedom of speech until it harms someone else.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[rtb61]

You are obviously terribly confused. A political party is defined by it's actions not by the labels it chooses to advertise under. So the German Nazi party was far right, as private corporations functioned and profited during that whole period. All the arms manufacturers were private none of them where nationalised, citizens retained private ownership of resources and assets (at least the single group approved of by the party).

As for any associations with the intelligentsia, I see you have failed to hear of junk science, people who basically will trade upon their qualifications and say or write what ever they are paid to say or write. Technically Bill Ayers in his youth put forward his own opinions and with the impatience of youth expressed them in a questionable manner, behaviour which he had long since matured out of.

Now as for the whole gamut of right and left political bias, technically in a global sense the US does not have a leading left wing political party as the democrats and centre right and the republicans are far right, to see actual centre left political parties in action running countries you have to look overseas, Canada, Australia, England, etc. The outer edges of right and left politics has always demonstrated itself to be destructive, a grand deceit based upon propaganda and lies to empower and enrich a minority at the expense of the majority, from Hitler and Stalin, to Bush and Cheney, some of course are far more destructive than others but they have all been equally self serving and, any limits upon their actions have been forced upon them by outside influences rather than their own consciences.

A good indication of how centre a party is defined by it's willingness and hence the politicians of the parties willingness to be open to criticism, open to questions and open to ideas and not resorting to censorship to protect the facade they have created to hide their true nature.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[ronocdh]

Say, that word, nazi, what does it mean again ? Oh right ... it translates to "socialist".

I hate to nitpick, but it actually would translate to "National." The party name was the Nationalsozialisten, which translates, obviously, as "national socialists."

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[jellomizer]

Fix the problem by not talking about it, yea that works.
By making racist speech illegal all it does is hide all the racist people in society, they are still racist still finding their racist niches, and still can be dangerous. All it does is trying to force people to ignore the problem then actually confronting it.
Hey if you know the guy is a racist then you have a decision to associate yourself with him or not and accept the consequences for the actions. But if you don't you can much easier be seduced.

Also it creates a taboo with the hate just gets deferred somewhere else.
Ok Color of the skin is out, as well as religion. However you can still get people with disabilities, or education, smarts, choice in dress, types of music you listen to, the Operating Systems you prefer to use at home, what text editor you use.....
Silence doesn't fix the problem it defers it.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[ozbird]

The longer a country's name is, the less likely it is to be true...

"United States of America" - hmm, I think you're on to something.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

*sigh* Conveniently forgetting that I did NOT, in fact, claim the similarity was only in name ...

Care to answer the "policy" part too ? There is more of a match between nazi's and socialists than merely the name.

More than enough people "switched" from socialism to nazism. That's because it wasn't a switch at all.

More than enough policies by the nazi's are still pushed by lefties today. That's because they ARE "progressive" policies.

Nazism, like socialism today, was a youth movement that played amongst young people and on university campuses, with MUCH less support in the general population.

The leader of the nazi party, adolf hitler, was, like socialists today, hailed as a "man of peace", a man of "social justice" all over the world, europe, america even the fucking middle east, right up until the second year of world war 2. He was even nominated for a nobel peace prize. He even had the leader of the islamic world visit him to help rally muslims into the SS (you see the muslims had no problems with that whole killing Jews thing). ...

Germany during the late 30's and 40's was a fascist regime, as was Italy. Yes, Hitler's rhetoric talked of social justice, but that was what he did to get himself into power

People keep saying that about every last lefty leader. Today Chavez, Kim Joung Il. Or even the child-killer called Che Guevara.

The problem is not that those people have bad intentions. The problem is that lefty politics enable them. It's really simple : lefty politics -> everybody money for nothing -> nobody works anymore (gradual process), except for ideological reasons, in the army or whatever movement they have -> nothing gets produced anymore -> not even food -> politicians "divide" the food (and everything else) amongst the "most worthy" (themselves) -> millions die

Fascim = Socialism = a central state controlling the economy, the people, everything

And yes, that's not to say that socialism in a state, which is called communism, doesn't differ in a few details from "national-socialism". But the basic principle for running the state is the same.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[flnca]

The hippies are winning :)

Read up on history, man. The hippies were those that brought you pornography and freedom of sexuality in the first place.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

In this case, it's even better than the Streisand effect. Consider, if somebody accuses you of being a creepy authoritarian prick, censoring him is, perhaps, not the most effective of rebuttals.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Captain Splendid]

You mean like the USSR ?

No, the USSR did shit Hitler only dreamed about. At least Hitler let the white middle class mostly alone. In the USSR, you weren't safe no matter who you were until at least '57.

Lefty politics necessitate totalitarianism.

You can keep saying it, but it doesn't make it true.

Communism and socialism can only be imposed by force of arms, unlike capitalism.

No, capitalism can only be imposed by force of threat of poverty, which to me, is much more insidious. Money (wealth) is a weapon, too.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Tony Hoyle]

Only an american could describe hitler as left wing....

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Brian Gordon]

You'd best be trolling. The left wing is famous for preserving personal freedoms and forcing businesses to follow policies that favor the people. The right wing is concerned with safety and financial stability and leeway at the national-corporate level, at the cost of many civil rights.

stereotypically, in rough order:
Left wing = environmentalists, civil rights advocates, poor people, young people, gay people, anti-war protesters
Right wing = rich people, conservative/traditional (usually older) people, religious people, business owners/executives

Basically you have it completely backwards. The far extreme right is called fascism and the far extreme left is called socialism. The thing about prophets was defended by left-wingers concerned with free speech, and the thing about undermining freedoms for the common cause was fascist italy/germany killing jews and gypsies.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[ScrewMaster]

The longer a country's name is, the less likely it is to be true...

"United States of America" - hmm, I think you're on to something.

No, it's not the length of a country's name that matters at all. If you want to get a better idea of a particular nation's governmental system, look for the keywords "democratic" and "republic". The United States of America has neither of those words in its name ... although it is both of them.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Brian Gordon]

Also remember that while personal sacrifice for The Party occurs in a socialist context, Marxism is supposed to be about bringing the wealth to the people. It just didn't really work out in practice.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Heddahenrik]

The divided states of North America
The barely united queendom of small Britain and some part not really on Ireland
The party's one party state of China
The secular dictatorship of Iran

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[MrMista_B]

Someone who's 'far-right', anywhere else in the world, in America would be considered 'moderate' or 'left-leaning'.

Think about that for a few moments, and realise what that means.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[alzoron]

What you just described is already taken care of with laws against inciting riots. Why do we need more laws covering the same thing? It's like having a law against apples, and another law against red apples.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Sapphon]

Being "left" or "right" has nothing to do with whether you're fascist or not. Fascism is an expression of total authoritarianism, which it is perfectly possible to combine with an attitude of socialism. They're two separate axes on the political compass.

Note that on the above chart, Dr. Angela Merkel (current German chancellor) is, in fact, "right". She's just not as right as most other Western leaders, leading to the impression that she is, in fact, "left".

Lutz Heilmann is even further left (his Party is called "The Left"), and on the Authoritarian/Libertarian scale doubtlessly up nice and high.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[aproposofwhat]

Sorry, but you're almost entirely wrong.

Nazionalsozialismus translates to 'National Socialism', but in fact it was a form of corporatism, in which industry was used as a tool of the state - not nationalised, but incoroporated deeply into the state itself.

Something similar is happening in Britain, as the 'third way' morphs into the Fourth Reich - the ties between state and industry are becoming closer, and the will of the Neues Arbeit elite is expressed through the actions of private industry.

You're talking nonsense - please don't bother.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[sumdumass]

So lets say I'm well off financially and we become a leftist socialist state. No one is going to take my money to give to those less fortunate then me? I can keep all my money, make as much as I want without fear of the government threatening my freedoms with guns and people carrying them? Or is it a situation where it will happened to everyone but me? How about you?

No, capitalism can only be imposed by force of threat of poverty, which to me, is much more insidious. Money (wealth) is a weapon, too.

You have swallowed too much koolaid and don't seem to have any desires left within you. If you refuse to work for yourself or provide for your family, then why do you deserve money or food from anyone else? Even in a socialist state, you would be required to work and given to by an accounting of what your worth to the over all contribution you make. You would still be poor and in poverty- but I guess you would feel good about it or something right?

The benefits of capitalism is that it allows you a way out. It allows you to apply yourself and better your situation. It isn't always possible until you see the possibilities and you can make things worse by making the wrong decisions. It isn't even always easy, You have to apply yourself but the opportunity is there. Where is the opportunity in a socialist state? If you work harder then everyone else beside you, where or how do you benefit? Does someone magically reward you for doing a better job and give you more then them? Oh wait, that would be a capitalist value.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[m.ducharme]

You totally forgot to mention that Hitler was backed by corporations and some aristocracy before he took over, and in bed with Corporate Germany during/after the war. You think that just because he called his party the "National Socialist" Party that he really meant it? Have you forgotten he was the greatest propagandist of his era?

He didn't nationalize large industries in Germany, he printed piles of money to pay the corporations for their work on his war, and made their owners filthy rich (until the currency collapsed, of course, doesn't this sound familiar to you?). A lot of those corporations still exist, in some form or other, but they keep that part of their corporate history quiet, you can be sure. This is totally opposite to Stalin and the Communists, who simply took over the corporations and executed the owners.

Fascism =/= Socialism, sorry, you need to go get some education in that regard. Fascism == Authoritarianism, and Communism == Authoritarianism, but guess what, socialism doesn't automatically equal authoritarianism (unless you've been brainwashed by the current champion propagandists in the US, that is). As hard as it is to believe, you can have a socialist, liberal government. Of course, in these troubled times, when all nations are leaning hard to the authoritarian side, thanks to Mr. Bush and his advisors, Tony Blair, John Howard, etc, examples are hard to come by.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Anonymous Cowpat]

"East Yemen; isn't that a democracy too?"
"Its full name is 'The People's Democractic Republic of East Yemen' "
"Oh, I see, so it's a communist dictatorship then"

-Sir Humphrey Appleby and Sir Richard Wharton, Yes Prime Minister, "A Victory for Democracy"

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Miseph]

Oh woe is you, unable to make infinite amounts of money and not give anything back. How about this, you do that without any public roads, any public education 9including for anyone in your employ, directly or otherwise, without publicly funded police and fire fighters protecting you, without a national military keeping your economic interests safe from interference, and without the benefit of any sort of regulations or laws to protect you while you sit on your enomous pile of money you have out in the woods with nobody else around, and you can stop paying taxes.

In the mean time, quit pretending like not having any taxes at all would work, or that you are so oppressed by having to contribute a portion of what you earn to the community in order to retain the benefits of being a part of it. You aren't the only person who counts, and if you're too much of a greedy shithead to accept the idea that, say, everyone deserves medical care when they are sick or injured, even if you don't get to keep every last cent you make, then I don't see why the impetus should be on the rest of us to explain why you're a total douchebag.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[ta bu shi da yu]

Oh yay, let's all classify others on a simplistic and misleading two-dimensional political scale. Hey, at least it helps us from having to use our brains to comprehend the world around us.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Frozentech]

That's because the term Fascist has become utterly misused in the United States. It pretty much has devolved to mean "bully", rather than a political-economic system.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[kaos07]

No, Communism doesn't equal authoritarianism, especially in the same sense as fascism. How could an ideology seeking to take power away from the rich minority and give it the majority, as well as calling for the dissolution of the State itself be considered "authoritarian"?

"Socialism" could be authoritarian or not, depending on the flavour. There are literally dozens of different types of socialism. Some anarchic, some authoritarian. And some in the middle.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Mjec]

There is no "East Yemen".

Correct. Because when insulting countries in your TV comedy, it's generally best to keep them fake.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[narcberry]

Huh? You lost me at united.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[narcberry]

I keep telling that to all these dumb chicks at work. If they want me to stop talking about their perky little bits, they should come into my office and *confront* me.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[wisty]

That's right. The US may be right wing (oppressive) on civil rights, but the government is very left wing with it's big spending. Especially the Republicans, who spend like drunken sailors, leaving a big mess for the Democrats to clean up. But yeah, you just get dumber every time someone says the word "left" or "right" in a political debate. It means that they see the world in terms of pro-socialist or anti-socialist, which is flat out irrelevant these days.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[k8to]

Whether or not hate crimes are a wrongheaded concept is not an issue on which I have a strong stand.

However, it is possible to craft anti-hate laws which essentially make it harder to incite violence in code. For example, a campaign of hatred is mounted without explicit calls to violence, but with inciting of violence being its aims. Supporters of hate crimes who are both genuine and considered would be attempting to achieve a reduction in this type of activity.

I don't claim the existing hate crimes are well crafted. Most of the ones I've reviewed essentially step up penalties for existing actions when they are racially (or similar) motivated. Some say this is completely unreasonable, because it is about intention. However, we have different crimes for killing people depending upon various types of intention from no crime, through wrongful death and manslaughter up to first degree murder. It seems that a more insightful debate is required to convince me either way on hate crimes.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[sean4u]

What you just described is already taken care of with laws against inciting riots

I'm not sure it is. Riots are often not aimed at any person or group of persons - it's hard to find a victim of a riot. If your car is torched during a riot, you're the victim of criminal damage. Maybe someone incited the riot, but are they really liable for incitement to criminal damage in the case of your car? "Kill Salman Rushdie" is incitement to murder, clearly. "Purge the world of the scourge of gingas" is a hard one to call. I'm not sure if many jurisdictions have specific laws against genocide. It's easy (you know what I mean, I hope) once someone dies - someone is guilty of murder, but is the ginga-hater guilty of incitement in the specific case of the dead ginga? I guess it depends how awful you think genetic-composition-based hate is. It certainly lies somewhere between the diffuse crime of incitement to riot and the specific crime of incitement to murder.

IANAL by the way. I no longer have the mane of a ginga either, age is drawing my tricolour coat towards drab with white highlights.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Cassius Corodes]

I don't know how someone would not know this unless they have never worked...

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[Carewolf]

No, not really. Medicine is one of the strong industries in Denmark. By citizens Denmark produces more patents and earns more Nobel prices than the US in Medicine (by a factor of 4). Most of the large US medical companies has research centers in or near Copenhagen in the so-called "Medicon Valley", and Novo Nordisk one of the largst pharmaceatical companies is danish. One of the benefits of free education is a highly educated population ideal for research and development.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[flnca]

That's an interesting question. If a country will, in a true democratic fashion, slip into rampant nationalism, and then racism (while still remaining democratic)

That's exactly how the Nazis came to power in the first place. They were democratically elected in the Weimar Republic.

would you say that "democracy failed" and that a coup is needed, followed by a period of dictatorial rule to make sure that the Nazis are rooted out?

Of course not, we have the Constitution Protection and our laws for that. This makes sure Nazi influence stays limited.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Please explain how forcing people to give up all the fruits of all their labor is "libertarian" ... Because all lefties ever mention is names, they never touch upon the contents of their ideology.

So : how do you force everyone to share all the fruits of their labour "with everyone" (and who decides, because if the deciders are corrupt, which they always are, obviously you haven't solved anything).

Always the same with leftists. Lefty politics is "peaceful", as long as they're not in power ... after that ... terms like "endlosung" or "gulag" are generally used.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand

[|DeN|niS]

An example : in Holland you can get dialysis (if you need this, you die without). However once you turn 65, you cannot get dialisys anymore in any hospital, at any price. Anyone with kidney problems (which is a lot of people) ages to 65 years and 6 months or so in Holland, and not a day older. If you try to buy it, which is obviously not cheap, you run the risk of getting arrested, both the patient and the docter, and getting incarcerated WITHOUT dialisys. The one guy they did this to did not survive to see his trial. Isn't socialist healthcare grand ?

source: http://www.nierstichting.nl/ziekte/feiten_en_cijfers

Dialysepatiënten per leeftijdsgroep (2006)
Leeftijd Aantal Percentage
0-15 37 1%
16-44 812 14%
45-64 1.898 34%
65-74 1.439 25%
75+ 1.471 26%

2910 people disagree with you (out of the total of ~5600 Dutch people dependant on dialysis for survival).

Oops

[sakdoctor]

Thankfully for Lutz Heilmann, who formerly worked for the Stasi, attempting to censor information does not cause it to be widely publicized.

There should be a name for that.

Re:Oops

[Tubal-Cain]

Stasiand effect?

Re:Oops

[future assassin]

> Thankfully for Lutz Heilmann, who formerly worked for the Stasi, attempting to censor information does not cause it to be widely publicized. There should be a name for that. Lutz : One who tries to censor information about his or hers political crimes.

So what's the problem?

[Tubal-Cain]

forbidding the forwarding of the popular http://wikipedia.de/ to the proper http://de.wikipedia.org/

So what part of that is he claiming is illegal?

Re:So what's the problem?

[wild_quinine]

So what part of that is he claiming is illegal?

The defamation he's about to recieve on his wikipedia page.

Re:So what's the problem?

[Kjella]

According to the page they have put up instead, the german company has been forbidden from forwarding to any site that contains the accusations against him. Not linking to the accusations, but any forwarding. Under that ruling, they definately couldn't forward to google.com either...

Re:So what's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone editing his page should be careful to sticking to the facts, else they just justify its removal as well as degrading the stature of Wikipedia. German news agencies should get a copy of the wiki at the time when Heilmann complained and check all the info on it, then report on it noting the parts he specifically complained on including the findings of their own research. It wouldn't hurt for academia and the general public to join in on this as is their duty as citizens.

It needs to be made clear to politicians and bureaucrats everywhere that their very positions permit or even demand microscopic public inspection of their actions. If they are going to act to ban negative comments on themselves then the comments need to be at a minimum unprovable as facts or better yet provably false. If comments are found to be provably true then the response to the government official(s) involved should be harsh.

Re:So what's the problem?

[saibot834]

To clarify a few things: This is NOT a final judgment. In Germany, we have a "Einstweilige Verfügung" (preliminary injunction), so if Mr. Heilmann wants to shut wikipedia.de down, he goes to a judge and the judge may approve in urgent cases, without asking the opposite side. This is only temporarily until there is a hearing with both sides arguing, and also, if it turns out that Mr. Heilmann was wrong, Wikimedia Deutschland has entitlement to damages that were caused by the "Einstweilige Verfügung".

So, cool down, this process is nothing special and it doesn't mean that Germany supports censorship.

Another detail: Wikimedia Deutschland is a nonprofit organisation, not a company. They work together with the American Wikimedia Foundation.

How can this happen?

[thetoadwarrior]

If it's true then what judge in their right mind would block a site for telling the truth?

Re:How can this happen?

[techno-vampire]

In principle, at least, it could happen in Britain if the truth were considered sufficiently defamatory. Unlike in America, the truth is not an absolute defense there against libel and if you can persuade a judge that you were defamed you can win a libel suit even if what was published was the plain, unembellished truth. If, let's say, you had photographic evidence of a politician cheating on his wife and put them up on the web, he could sue and the judge would probably end up ordering them taken down. I doubt that anybody would go this far, but there's nothing in their law to prevent it.

All doubts are gone

[Charles Dodgeson]

People may have doubted whether a former DDR Stasi employee would reform or continue with old ways of treating the public. Now all questions about this particular thug have evaporated.

FAIL!

[Chris Snook]

If you don't want publicity associating you with the Stasi, this probably isn't the best method of challenging the accusation.

Not a good idea....

[jawtheshark]

If you really have a shady background, the internet will surface the truth. So, either you deny and have the consequences, or you admit your faults and people might start to respect you that you're an upstanding person.

domain name

[bzuro]

why don't you guys just transfer the domain name to some foreign body (wikimedia naturally comes to mind), out of the german jurisdiction?

Lutz Helimann, ex Stasi?

[blind biker]

I didn't know that. Now I do. And so do a few tens of thousand other people who would have not known, if he had not tried to have the German Wikipedia shut down.

In fact, I bet that most of the readers of the German Wikipedia didn't know that Lutz Heilmann was a Stasi, and now they do.

Who the fuck elected this crooked fully-employed ex-Stasi to the Bundestag, though?

Working for them is not an indiscression

[MikeRT]

You can't work for an agency like the Stasi and just apologize for it. To be forgiven, you must don sackcloth, repent and repudiate what you once stood for. If this politician hasn't repudiated everything--everything--the Stasi stood for, he should be hounded for life for having worked for them.

Re:Is Obama's past on wikipedia ?

[cbiltcliffe]

Obama got elected because right wing policies have killed the US over the last 8 years.
I agree with you that leftist policies suck when implemented poorly. Guess what? Right wing policies suck when implemented poorly, too.

I'm sick to death of all this partisan bullshit. "It's all the Democrats' fault!!" "No, it's all the Republicans' fault!!" Guess what, you blind morons? It's politicians' fault!

The problem is not left or right wing. The problem is politicians, as a rule, horribly suck at implementing good ideas properly. They'd much rather write legislation that bandaids symptoms rather than fixing the root cause of a problem.
They'd much rather take input from industry insiders who have a vested interest in a certain outcome, rather than looking at what's best for the country as a whole.

All of them.

Obama was elected. Suck it up and deal. You can vote him out again in four years.

Until then, fuck off.

He successfully took down another site

[cjfs]

... his own.

Please contact the server administrator, [no address given]

Reliably sourced and encyclopedic?

[davidwr]

Now that he's going to be America's next Pres, you can argue that just about anything more than what's on his breakfast table is encyclopedic, but without reliable sources it won't stay on Wikipedia.

Get it on CNN or even a local newspaper and you can put it on Wikipedia. Well, until you get into an edit war then Wikifacts yeilds to Wikitruth, which is whichever side can out-revert the other without getting on the wrong side of the arbitration committee.

Encyclopedia Dramatica?

[davidwr]

With a name only 1 letter away from LULZ he's prime fodder for Encyclopedia Dramatica.

Ironically, the article about him says

There is currently no text in this page, you can search for this page title in other pages or edit this page.

IT'S CENSORSHIP! It's censorship I say!

Title is wrong.

[jcr]

Change "Politician" to "STASI snitch".

-jcr

Re:Is Obama's past on wikipedia ?

[lukas84]

Where was this talk when Bush was in office?

You should've known that left-wingers only think that their's a right to complain when something happens that doesn't agree with their view.

This problem is the same everywhere in the world.

Actually...

[tmk]

Mr Heilmann didn't have a problem with Wikipedia publishing information on his work for the former Stasi. It's one of few facts in the article he does not complain about. He had some problems with enemies in his own party and with the yellow press. And he insists he had never interrupted his university education.

Re:Translation?

[Snowblindeye]

Is there anyone here that can translate wikipedia.de's homepage for us?

Here you go, translation of wikipedia.de's current page:

In accordance with the injunction granted by the district court in Luebeck on Nov 13th 2008 to Lutz Heilman, member of parliament (Left Party), the Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. is forbidden from "redirecting the internet address wikipedia.de to the internet address de.wikipedia.org" as long as "under the internet address de.wikipedia.org" certain statements are published about Lutz Heilmann. Until further notice the service of wikipedia.de will have to be discontinued in its existing form. Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. will appeal this injunction.

The Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. is not the publisher of the "Wikipedia" which is published under de.wikipedia.org and has no influence over its content. Instead, Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. is a non profit organization to further free knowledge, which simply educates about the usage of Wikipedia. The operator of the Encyclopedia is the Wikimedia Foundation, a foundation that is incorporated in Florida, USA with headquarters in San Francisco.

If you want to support us, you can donate for us. More information under http://spenden.wikimedia.de/ That you for your help.

Our thanks go to JBB Lawfirm for the fast and competent help.

Completely false summary

[br00tus]

That Heilmann worked for the German Democratic Republic's Ministry for State Security has been well known for a while, he is objecting to claims on Wikipedia that he was a pornographer and the like, which there is very little evidence of. Of course, the person summarizing this making bullshit up has a much better chance of getting people up in arms over it, lying always helps in mud-slinging since the point of mud-slinging is to throw as much mud as possible and see how many uninformed people will believe any stuck, debunking lies is mostly a waste of effort.

In terms of free speech in Europe this is very minor, people are jailed for analyses of Nazi treatment of Jews during World War II that don't follow a set pattern. If people are being sent to jail for writing in Europe, I don't see why closing down a press or web site is that big of a deal. From my understanding of things, many Nazis tended to be barbaric, so I would be skeptical of apologetic books on how nice concentration camps were, but I don't think people should be jailed for it, or the books and presses even shut down.

Re:Completely false summary

[cyxxon]

In terms of free speech in Europe this is very minor, people are jailed for analyses of Nazi treatment of Jews during World War II that don't follow a set pattern.

Citation please?

Re:What Rights?

[Meumeu]

And maybe that's why Europe and Asia has a long history of despotic strongmen. Order over freedom tends to get that for you.

Or maybe it's because Europe and Asia have a quite longer history than America...

Summary is wrong

[canajin56]

Or at least misleading. While he MAY not like the fact that they link him to the Stasi, the reason for the injunction is that the German Wikipedia page claims he never finished his university degree, and was involved in pornography in some way or other. The fact that he was in the Stasi was well known, and caused a political shitstorm when it first hit the presses, though he somehow managed to evade impeachment. He denies having not finished his degree, as well as his involvement in a pornography business. Whether or not they are true is unknown to me, but it DOES say so on Wikipedia (without sources)!

Re:Germany does not have enough respect for freedo

[sa1lnr]

But the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission isn't.

Re:Is Obama's past on wikipedia ?

[AdonaiElohim]

Where's the 5000$ you promised ? The 5000$ that bought so many idiot votes, let's see it.

Again: The only American politician who has ever sent everyone a check in an attempt to buy idiots' votes was George W. Bush. Also, just in case you're curious, everything else you posted is wrong and stupid.

Re:What??

[Bambi Dee]

Because they weren't breaking the law at the time. (Short version)

Re:What Rights?

[DesScorp]

"Fortunately, those of us in the U.S. are about to get rid of our despotic strongmen, along about January 20 of next year."

You realize that you just defeated your own argument, don't you? If you can vote them out, then are they despots? Despots don't tend to stand for things like free elections, and George Bush and his party have lost two in a row without sending the Army to void those elections. Just because you don't like the guy doesn't qualify him as a tyrant.

The loss was too big

[Nicolas MONNET]

There is not a perfect dichotomy between "perfectly free eletions" and "despotism." In the middle lies "tweaking results," "voter intimidation," "caging," "Diebold" and "The Supreme Court's Bush v Gore".

In the past two elections in the US, the margin was high enough to overrule the tweaking.