Link to full story:
http://www.theage.com.au/technology...or-naming-punished-killers-20091115-igdz.html
---
---
The law, as it applies in the United States in relation to this case, seems reasonably clear - the right of Wikipedia to publish these names would be protected by the First Amendment.
In your opinion, what's the right thing to do ethically here?
http://www.theage.com.au/technology...or-naming-punished-killers-20091115-igdz.html
---
TWO German men who murdered an actor in 1990 are suing Wikipedia, claiming its description of their crimes impinges on their privacy.
The case pits the United States's first amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech, against German privacy and criminal laws, which dictate that after a certain period a crime is spent and cannot be referred to. Britain has similar rules on the reporting of lesser crimes.
...
The German editors of Wikipedia have removed the killers' names from the German-language version about the victim, Walter Sedlmayr. But Mr Stopp has also filed a suit in Germany demanding that the Wikimedia Foundation remove their names from the English-language article.
...
Floyd Abrams, a prominent first amendment lawyer, said every judge on the US Supreme Court would agree that the Wikipedia article ''is easily, comfortably protected by the first amendment''.
But Germany had come up with a different balance between the right to privacy and the public's right to know ....
The German law springs from a court ruling in 1973, which has led to publications there referring to people whose convictions are ''spent'' as, for example, ''the perpetrator''.
The case pits the United States's first amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech, against German privacy and criminal laws, which dictate that after a certain period a crime is spent and cannot be referred to. Britain has similar rules on the reporting of lesser crimes.
...
The German editors of Wikipedia have removed the killers' names from the German-language version about the victim, Walter Sedlmayr. But Mr Stopp has also filed a suit in Germany demanding that the Wikimedia Foundation remove their names from the English-language article.
...
Floyd Abrams, a prominent first amendment lawyer, said every judge on the US Supreme Court would agree that the Wikipedia article ''is easily, comfortably protected by the first amendment''.
But Germany had come up with a different balance between the right to privacy and the public's right to know ....
The German law springs from a court ruling in 1973, which has led to publications there referring to people whose convictions are ''spent'' as, for example, ''the perpetrator''.
---
The law, as it applies in the United States in relation to this case, seems reasonably clear - the right of Wikipedia to publish these names would be protected by the First Amendment.
In your opinion, what's the right thing to do ethically here?