German Killers Sue Wikipedia To Remove Their Names

Jason Levine writes "Wolfgang Werlé and Manfred Lauber killed a German actor in 1990. Now that they are out of prison, German law states that they can't be referred to by name in relation to the killings. Therefore, they have sued to get Wikipedia to remove their names from the Wikipedia article about the killings. The German edition of Wikipedia has already complied, but the English edition is citing US freedom of speech and a lack of presence in Germany as reasons why they don't need to remove the name. In a bit of irony, their lawyer e-mailed the NY Times: 'In the spirit of this discussion, I trust that you will not mention my clients' names in your article.'"

Comments

Bubby? Is that you?

[YrWrstNtmr]

That these guys killed someone and were convicted of it is a recorded, historical fact. No allegations, simple fact.

Are we not allowed to state simple facts now?

Re:Bubby? Is that you?

[Anonymous Coward]

They KILLED someone.

I think I would like to know the a potential employee is a murderer, that isn't something you want to come to light later on when said person goes on an office rampage.

Re:Bubby? Is that you?

[MBCook]

Why should anyone treat someone differently just because they have a record of killing someone who argued with them?

Re:Bubby? Is that you?

[lottameez]

Someone that has murdered someone should not be thought of "in the same way" as someone who has not.

Re:Bubby? Is that you?

[YrWrstNtmr]

Ask yourself if you were introduced to a person and you found out that they were murderers would you think of them the same way?

Honestly, no, I wouldn't think of them the same way as I would someone else.
Because they actually killed someone.

Re:Bubby? Is that you?

[jcr]

Sorry, but I have no duty to treat a murderer the same way I would treat an innocent person, even if they've served their sentence. The German parliament made a poor decision to pass a law protecting a murderer from the disgust of the public.

-jcr

Re:Bubby? Is that you?

[dexmachina]

Yes. That's why they're called facts. If you want a normal life, it's your job to spend the rest of it convincing everyone that you aren't the person you were. Redemption, not revision.

Re:Bubby? Is that you?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are right that those are the facts, but must facts always haunt you?

Gee, I don't know because that's the fucking reality of the situation? The guy they murdered doesn't spring back to life after they've paid their "debt". They've got some nerve complaining about how rotten their lives are after taking someone else's. Perhaps they would have been happier with a lethal injection?

Re:Bubby? Is that you?

[jipn4]

No I think the idea here is that if you have done the time in jail then you should have the right to a normal life.

That's a seriously wrong understanding of a "normal life". After they come out of jail, the government has an obligation to treat these people no differently than anybody else. Everybody else (employers, private citizens), however, are under no obligation to forgive and forget.

There is something seriously wrong with you if you think that it is the government's job to revise historical facts for the purpose of tricking me into associating with people I would otherwise not want anything to do with.

This is the premise of our entire justice system.

If rewriting historical facts is a recognized function of the German justice system, then Germany is already careening out of control towards fascism again.

Ask yourself if you were introduced to a person and you found out that they were murderers would you think of them the same way?

Of course not. They are murderers. They have to live with the consequences of their past actions, just like everybody else.

Re:Bubby? Is that you?

[LKM]

They killed somebody, they were convicted, they served their time. If you think people should never be allowed to enter society again after killing somebody (which is an entirely acceptable point of view), change the laws.

Re:Bubby? Is that you?

[annodomini]

Your name, address, social security number, bank account balance, credit card transactions, passwords, medical history, and so on are simple facts. Should those who have access to that information be allowed to state those simple facts? In public, on the internet, where anyone and everyone can see it?

This is an issue about freedom of speech versus the right to privacy. The murder is a simple fact, but it's something that happened almost 20 years ago. They have done their time, and are being released back into the world, where they need to try and put together a life again. Now, the question is, should anyone (such as potential employers) be able to Google their names and get a Wikipedia article naming them as murderers as the first hit?

This is a tough question. On the one hand, it is a plain and simple fact, that has been widely publicized, so it's fairly hard to put the cat back in the bag. On the other hand, someone who's been in prison for years, and is getting out and trying to re-integrate with society, doesn't need the added burden of everyone who interacts with them treating them with fear and suspicion because of something that happened long ago. Some judicial systems (such as that in the US), focus most on punishment and the deterrent value that supposedly has; others focus on rehabilitation and turning someone back into a productive member of society.

Now, I do favor protecting freedom of speech in this case; you can't suppress the information entirely, so any attempt to is just going to be more harmful than helpful. But I just wanted to point out that just because something is a simple fact, does not mean that it's OK to publish it on the public Internet.

Re:Bubby? Is that you?

[jcr]

You have a duty to not assume they're still bad people,

Like hell I do. I can assume whatever I care to, with or without your approval.

who are you to judge?

I'm a person with the right to form my opinions according to my own standards. Who are you to order me not to?

-jcr

Re:Bubby? Is that you?

[Opportunist]

The idea, the concept behind crime&punishment, is that you paid your dues after you are released from prison. Especially in the case of murder these people are examined to determine if they're still a threat for humanity. If they are, they don't go free.

If you don't want to give these people a chance to reintegrate into society, why bother releasing them at all?

Re:Bubby? Is that you?

[jgrahn]

Sorry, but I have no duty to treat a murderer the same way I would treat an innocent person, even if they've served their sentence. The German parliament made a poor decision to pass a law protecting a murderer from the disgust of the public.

I'd prefer not to know, so I could treat them the way I'd treat anyone. The way I see it, that way they have the possibility to redeem themselves. If they are hated and persecuted everywhere they go, what good are they to themselves or to anyone else?

Re:Bubby? Is that you?

[palegray.net]

I think every single member of society has a right to know the past criminal history of someone they're in any kind of relationship with. This is completely different from saying someone shouldn't be allowed to re-enter society, but the fact that may people have a hard time getting better than a minimum wage job after committing murder isn't something I feel bad about.

Re:Bubby? Is that you?

[snowgirl]

In theory right, but in this case you have to weigh the interests. These people committed a crime, did their time and now they are free again. They should be given a chance to reintegrate into society. At least in Germany the idea behind prison is to "better" the person, not just revenge and punishment. And this can be severely hindered if the first thing you find when you look for his name is that he's shot someone. Wikipedia has a tendency to come up as the first hit for any given keyword you might be looking for.

Most Americans have been socialized in a culture of punishment, not rehabilitation. It is difficult to try to get us to avoid the knee-jerk reaction of "BUT HE NEEDS TO BE PUNISHED!" It's precisely why we imprison so much of our society.

Re:Bubby? Is that you?

[denebeim]

Or someone close to you that was killed by someone who was placed in an untenable situation. If you let someone out of prison and then make sure that they can't feed themselves or have anything resembling a life you shouldn't be surprised when they return to the only option left open to them, crime.

Re:Bubby? Is that you?

[duffel]

This is a cultural difference. In America you value freedom of speech above many other rights, including privacy. In Germany, it is the other way around - Germans value privacy greatly, but do not necessarily think everyone should always be allowed to speak their mind. For example, you can go to jail for denying the holocaust happened... but on the other hand Privacy International acknowledges german privacy safeguards while naming the united states an endemic surveillance society. (source. It seems even Germany is slipping on PI's scales these days...)

They are private facts. The people who hold that information have always been, and will always be, contractually and legally obliged to keep those facts private.
  The identity of the murderers isn't just a fact, it's a public fact, part of the public record, established in a public trial.

The main facts remain the same, only the names will be expunged from public access. I would say this is because, once freed, criminals regain a lot of their rights to privacy.

The question is whether government has the right to retroactively rewrite public databases, public records, and public facts. The only possible answer is a resounding "no". Fascist states, dictatorships, and communist states rewrite history; democracies do not.

Oh, you can't just denounce everyone who doesn't share to the your particular viewpoint of an ideal democracy as fascist! Different cultures have different needs. Both viewpoints are trying to achieve an ideal but falling short as realistic governments are bound to.

Anyway, it's not altering history, it's expunging names from the public record to protect people. It's not like they're writing someone else's name into the history books.

This is a tough question.

No, it really isn't

It's just that your particular value system only permits one possible answer, but not everyone shares that system precisely. Disagree if you must, but at the very least you have to agree that in Germany, the german people should be allowed to make their laws as they see fit. Now, American law disagrees with German law. How then do you approach such an international thing as wikipedia? You don't think this is a tough question? The obvious answers all leave a lot to be desired.

Re:Bubby? Is that you?

[nietsch]

Their sentence was handed out by a German judge and did not include being haunted for the rest of their lives. They are convicted murderers, but they also are human beings. If you think that last fact means nothing for you, then you are saying you have no respect for human beings.
It is easy to respect the rights of someone you agree with. You show your civility in how you respect the rights of those you disagree with.

Re:Freedom of Speech

[TheRaven64]

Are you trolling or just brainwashed? This is why the Internet (which is not under US control at the moment) should not be under any single country's control. If it were under US control, you could watch the gambling sites and anything else politically expedient disappear.

Re:Freedom of Speech

[SerpentMage]

Oh REALLY?

Explain the PATRIOT act to me?

While the American constitution undeniably is what you say it is, the past 20 years has not been kind to America!

A fresh start

[girlintraining]

I'm sure a lot of people are going to come out against the position of Germany's culture on this, citing freedom of speech. Freedom of speech, in the United States at least, is not given to citizens so that they can harm other people's reputations or hold them accountable for their actions. It is there so that actions by the government can be openly criticized and constructive dialog be established between (and amongst) citizens and the government, without fear of reprisal. It is there for the betterment of everyone. If there is no benefit to society, no protection is granted.

These people have served their sentences. They have been punished according to the law of their land, and then released. In this country, a person's criminal record haunts them for life -- denying them jobs, restricting their freedoms, and in some cases leading to a greatly diminished quality of life such that they are forced into criminal enterprise in order to meet basic needs. But in Germany, these laws are crafted so that people can have a chance at a normal life again--A chance at redemption. It is recognized that people make mistakes, but these mistakes shouldn't haunt them for the rest of their lives. The government has stepped in to ensure that any adult citizen that has their freedom also has the same chances as the next.

As far as the internet -- do we really want it to be a tool that enables a person's past mistakes to haunt them forever? That any personal information, once released into it, somehow becomes public property? Those naked photos your boyfriend took of you when you thought you'd be with him forever -- are those public property once he breaks up with you and posts them online? How about the records of your divorce, or the reasons why you were fired? What about that one night when your best friend tried to walk out of the bar drunk, and you stole the car keys and the two of you got into a big fight and the police were called? You want the whole world to know about these things? Or--was it just a mistake and once amends have been made then that's the end of it?

Just because the information is out there doesn't mean it should be. Information doesn't have rights -- people do.

Re:A fresh start

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. If you murder two people, then I have the right to know about it. That you served your time and have set out in the world to start over is your right once released. But people have the right to know the guy down the street is a convicted murderer.

What happens if somebody is released for sexual predation of children? Should their names be stricken from any record of the crime? Does the young mother living next door to this released predator have no right to know of a potential danger?

I am all for giving ex-cons a fair deal. I really do understand how badly they are treated by society and would never treat them as such myself. But I do have the right to know about these crimes. If you are talking about stealing beer at age 19, then fine, whatever. I really don't care. But murder? Come on.

Re:A fresh start

[Wog]

What about the rights of Walter Sedlmayr, who the duo tortured, mutilated, and killed because he was gay? He apparently doesn't matter anymore, you know, because they murdered him.

Everyone makes mistakes, right? Hogwash.

So these men should have a chance at a normal life again? What about Sedlmayr's normal life?

Re:A fresh start

[Registered Coward v2]

I'm sure a lot of people are going to come out against the position of Germany's culture on this, citing freedom of speech. Freedom of speech, in the United States at least, is not given to citizens so that they can harm other people's reputations or hold them accountable for their actions. It is there so that actions by the government can be openly criticized and constructive dialog be established between (and amongst) citizens and the government, without fear of reprisal. It is there for the betterment of everyone. If there is no benefit to society, no protection is granted.

Actually, no that is not the fundamental premise of the US concept of freedom of speech. It is that the prior restraint of speech is so onerous that it is not allowed; so that open debate can be had around issues.

These people have served their sentences. They have been punished according to the law of their land, and then released. In this country, a person's criminal record haunts them for life -- denying them jobs, restricting their freedoms, and in some cases leading to a greatly diminished quality of life such that they are forced into criminal enterprise in order to meet basic needs. But in Germany, these laws are crafted so that people can have a chance at a normal life again--A chance at redemption. It is recognized that people make mistakes, but these mistakes shouldn't haunt them for the rest of their lives. The government has stepped in to ensure that any adult citizen that has their freedom also has the same chances as the next.

As far as the internet -- do we really want it to be a tool that enables a person's past mistakes to haunt them forever? That any personal information, once released into it, somehow becomes public property? Those naked photos your boyfriend took of you when you thought you'd be with him forever -- are those public property once he breaks up with you and posts them online? How about the records of your divorce, or the reasons why you were fired? What about that one night when your best friend tried to walk out of the bar drunk, and you stole the car keys and the two of you got into a big fight and the police were called? You want the whole world to know about these things? Or--was it just a mistake and once amends have been made then that's the end of it?

Just because the information is out there doesn't mean it should be. Information doesn't have rights -- people do.

Yes, and in the US we have the right of free speech. The solution is not to suppress speech but to change the concept of how past infractions are viewed. While the later is a difficult task; repressing speech in the name of protecting people's rights is far worse.

Of course, as information becomes easier to access people also need to modify behaviors in light of changing technology; which they have been doing since the beginning of time. That is the real solution, IMHO.

Re: A fresh start

[fahrbot-bot]

But in Germany, these laws are crafted so that people can have a chance at a normal life again--A chance at redemption. It is recognized that people make mistakes, but these mistakes shouldn't haunt them for the rest of their lives.

Forgive and forget? Seems pretty short-sighted. I'm not sure I'd call murder a "mistake". An act like this *should* haunt the perpetrators for the rest of their lives.

The government has stepped in to ensure that any adult citizen that has their freedom also has the same chances as the next.

Except for the guy they killed. Where's his freedom and chance?

Lastly, what about the victim's family and friends? How about their chances for normal lives without the murder of their loved-one haunting them. Some things cannot be forgiven and some things should definitely not be forgotten.

Re:A fresh start

[Cochonou]

Well, in Germany, you do not have that right. End of the story.
Laws are only a reflection of the will of the society. The German society seems to be okay with forgetting such things. A large part of the slashdot community (a significant part of it living in the US) seems not to be okay with this. Different places, different minds. After you've said this, it just comes down to know how such laws are handled between countries. It kind of reminds me the "Yahoo nazi items" controversy, in which the U.S. site of Yahoo was accused to sell nazi items to French people (selling such items is prohibited in this country). Yahoo was ultimately required to prevent the sale of such items to French people. In the story case, I suspect a ruling would not be as clear cut - as there is no financial motive involved for wikipedia.

Re:A fresh start

[dcollins]

"Freedom of speech, in the United States at least, is not given to citizens so that they can harm other people's reputations or hold them accountable for their actions. It is there so that actions by the government can be openly criticized and constructive dialog be established between (and amongst) citizens and the government, without fear of reprisal. It is there for the betterment of everyone. If there is no benefit to society, no protection is granted."

This is perhaps the biggest pile of bullshit I've read on Slashdot in quite some time. This is not remotely how the U.S. constitution reads. This is complete fabricated nonsense.

Re: A fresh start

[Idiomatick]

"Forgive and forget? Seems pretty short-sighted. I'm not sure I'd call murder a "mistake". "
So you are saying people can't change? They could be radically different people after 20years.

"An act like this *should* haunt the perpetrators for the rest of their lives."
That is called REVENGE. Something that is not at all useful. I'd like to hope that we could evolve past this base need.

You seem to think that making this guys life harder will some how bring back the dead dude. It won't. You seem to think that this man being tortured will ease their hearts and make them happy. It won't. And if it did it fucking shouldn't, those thoughts are pretty horrible and something again we should move past.

Re:Get your lawyers ready /.

[Daniel Dvorkin]

I don't care what their names are. What are they doing out of prison?

They did the crime, they served their time. What's so hard to understand about that?

Re:Get your lawyers ready /.

[Majik Sheff]

If they did their time they'd be buried in a state-owned plot with a small placard to mark the spot and this whole discussion would be nonexistent.

Re:"WERE killers" or "HAVE killed", not "ARE kille

[blind biker]

You know, I admit I am biased. I don't like murderers like Wolfgang Werlé and Manfred Lauber, because their victims have no recourse, ever again. And while I do believe that some of them can change and not be a threat to other people again, that doesn't mean that the past didn't happen. Forgiveness yes, whitewash the past, fuck no!

Murderers should very well learn to live with the consequences of their actions, because their actions have consequences that can never be rectified.

Re:Get your lawyers ready /.

[LKM]

Since when is it your job to tell Germany how to apply its laws? Your moral disagreement is irrelevant to the discussion. They were tried under German law, served their time in Germany, and are now allowed to continue their lives. If you think that is wrong, move to Germany and change the laws, but don't advocate just ignoring the laws.

Re:"WERE killers" or "HAVE killed", not "ARE kille

[Hatta]

A young man is walking through a small village one day and decides to stop by a bar and have a beer. He walks into a bar, and sees a grizzled old man, crying into his beer. Curious, the young man sits down and says, "Hey old timer, why the long face?"
The old man looks at him and points out the window, "See that dock out there? I built that dock with my own two hands, plank by plank, nail by nail, but do they call me McGregor the dockbuilder? No, no."
The old man continued, "And see that ship out there? I've been fishing these waters for my village for 35 years! But do they call me McGregor the fisherman? No, no."
The old man continued, "And see all the crops in the farms out there? I planted and have been farming those crops for my village for nearly 45 years! But do they call me McGregor the farmer? No, no."
The old man starts to cry again, "But you fuck one goat..."

Re:Get your lawyers ready /.

[Ironsides]

If you think that is wrong, move to Germany and change the laws, but don't advocate just ignoring the laws.

Can we apply that same rule to this case, which would keep the killers name in the wikipedia article?

Amen!

[SmallFurryCreature]

Enough with the goddamn excuse culture. You want respect, you earn respect. You want a second chance, then PROVE you deserve it first.

These guys killed someone and now they want the world to pretend it has never happened. Does NOT happen.

Re:Amen!

[PCM2]

Enough with the goddamn excuse culture. You want respect, you earn respect. You want a second chance, then PROVE you deserve it first.

Yeah, but how are they supposed to do that?

• By dedicating their lives to hard work ... when they can't get jobs?
• By dedicating themselves to community service ... when the public views them with mistrust and suspicion?
• By voluntarily giving restitution money to the victim's family ... when they're broke (see first point)?
• By joining the army and dying for God and country in the foreign service, far away from the scorn of their fellow Germans ... when they have criminal records?

If you're going to make them walk around with a scarlet letter 'M' on their chests for the rest of their lives, just what opportunities will they ever have to redeem themselves?

If the purpose of prison is to reform criminals and give them the opportunity to return to society as productive citizens -- as seems to be the prevailing theory in Germany -- then it is the responsibility of the public to put that theory to the test. You can't send people to prison telling them, "you must reform," then let them out and tell them, "you have not reformed, sorry." One of the fundamental principles of justice in any democratic country is that the accused is allowed to speak up in his own defense, but what you're describing is a sentence from which there is no appeal.

Shoe on the other foot ! Hypocrits

[redelm]

This is fascinating -- when the United States [frequently] seeks to have its laws apply beyond its borders [extraterritoriality], everyone particularly the EU objects reflexively: "How dare they? We're a separate society."

Now some in the EU think its laws should apply to the US. And not just about this, also other issues. Why should anyone in the US, and particularly elements of the [deservedly] much-abused US government give a rats @$$ for such blatant hypocrisy? Surely no-one denies the US is a distinct society!

Re:Get your lawyers ready /.

[haeger]

The EU countries, unlike some other countries, are civilized ones and here we don't execute our citizens.

Re:Get your lawyers ready /.

[MakinBacon]

Since when is it your job to tell Germany how to apply its laws?

Since when is it Germany's job to tell Wikipedia how to censor its content?

Re:Get your lawyers ready /.

[WCguru42]

Since when is it Germany's job to tell the US how to apply the First Amendment?

Since when does a german lawyer and his german clients represent the nation of Germany. The lawyer would be ignoring his duties in protecting his clients if he didn't petition US wikipedia and news agencies to not discuss his clients. He's not going to win this fight because of the first amendment but he has to try.

Re:right of disassociation

[snowgirl]

The _murderer's_ rights aren't violated by people knowing what they did. They should have been executed anyways. But irrelevant of that, non-aggressive people also have the right of freedom of association. I for one choose not to associate with people I consider dangerous.

Most countries in the world do not hold to the barbaric idea of execution. We are supposed to be more moral than animals.

In a free society, criminals would owe restitution to their victims, and victims would be also entitled to request retribution against the criminal. Then people at large could make their own associative or dis-associative decisions regarding the criminal.

They paid their restitution, the victims likely requested their desired restitution, and you can associate or not with people in general, but people need not actively tell you that they committed a crime, or necessarily any other sort of information. In a free society, we have the right to disclose personal details at our own discretion... some details will be worn on our face... the color of our skin, our gender, etc... but in general, we should have our privacy to tell only the details that we wish to.

You're still free to choose not to associate with ex-criminals... but how many of them do you really know? I suppose more people than you would expect have had criminal run-ins... especially if you live in the USA.

One thing is clear, however. It doesn't violate anyone's rights for other people to know information about them that they've made publicly available through their actions.

Note that I'm not saying I have, per se, the right to know information about other people. That would imply positive obligations on the part of other people. However, no-one has the right to stop the various people at Wikipedia from recording and maintaining an account of history.

People have a right to privacy. The USA has "false light" laws as well as defamation laws. Sometimes, even if information is true, if it is presented with actual malice, it is wrong, and the individual is entitled to damages.

That is their private property right.

You seem to misunderstand what prompts rights. A government grants the rights of their citizens to their citizens. There is not some omnipotent higher-power that brings his hand down to personally interfere with human legal machinations.

Re:right of disassociation

[TrekkieGod]

In a free society, criminals would owe restitution to their victims, and victims would be also entitled to request retribution against the criminal. Then people at large could make their own associative or dis-associative decisions regarding the criminal.

In a completely free society, nobody is stopped from doing anything, which includes murdering others. A completely free society has no laws, and the strong rule.

In a society where people value life, liberty, and property, we restrict what others can do in order to protect those rights which we, as a society, have determined are most important. Thus, in order to protect my right to life, we have enacted laws against murder. In order to protect my right to property, we have enacted laws against theft. By violating the victim's right to life, those criminals gave up their right to freedom for nineteen years. According to German law, they have apparently given up no other right, and owe nobody else any other restitution. Their debt has been paid, and they now have all the rights given any other citizen. That's fine by me.

I still side with Wikipedia here because, among other reasons, German laws should not apply outside Germany. However, I object to your statement that in free society retribution is expected. Every law removes of some liberties in order to protect rights which said society values and thus, by definition, makes a society less free. A completely free society would not be one I'd like to live in, so these restrictions can make for a better society, but not a freer one.

Note that I'm not saying I have, per se, the right to know information about other people. That would imply positive obligations on the part of other people. However, no-one has the right to stop the various people at Wikipedia from recording and maintaining an account of history. That is their private property right.

Yes, I agree completely with you there. Seems like if they wanted to protect the identity of the murderers once they got out of jail, a better law would have been to never reveal this information in the first place, except to people who have some reason to be directly involved (family of the victims and the criminals, lawyers, etc). Once the information is out, it's out.

Re:Freedom of Speech

[dontmakemethink]

Just look at what's censored from American TV! Spike TV, "the network for men", can't even broadcast "God damn it" or "asshole", as if their UFC audience would be offended!

Any claim that Americans are the worldwide guardians of free speech is an epic fail.