Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Politician Forces German Wikipedia Off the Net

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the inconvenient-truth dept.

Censorship 569

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."

cancel ×

569 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand (4, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#25772923)

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 (-1, Flamebait)

lukas84 (912874) | more than 5 years ago | (#25772945)

Ok, granted, not in German, but is there anyone in Germany using the internet and NOT able to read English?

I'm not German either, but yes, there are many Germans that don't speak English. And a lot of them even work in IT, where English is basically a requirement.

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

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25773043)

Germany isn't, what you see now is just a tiny spec of what leftist policies can do. World war 2, the endlosung, hitler, the gulag, Lenin, Stalin, Mao and China are reminders what the strings are that are attached to "social justice" and "national healthcare".

For many on slashdot, they're not enough reminders. Olame-a "I'll give everyone 5000$" is trying to do the same in America.

For now Germany's weak, and it's leftist politicians have little hope of forcing others. But that won't last.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand (2, Insightful)

HappySmileMan (1088123) | more than 5 years ago | (#25773109)

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 (-1, Troll)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 5 years ago | (#25773163)

I may not agree with the above parent post, but your idiotic claims should be put right.

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

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

Transferring ownership of means of production exclusively to the state and then creating "social justice", the central part of the nazi policy, what's that according to you ?

Left or right ?

Hitler was a fucking nobel peace prize laureate due to a leftist "professor", with a questionable past. THAT's how left he was. He had his own Ayers behind him.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand (4, Funny)

narcberry (1328009) | more than 5 years ago | (#25773233)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25773253)

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

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

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand (5, Insightful)

BobNET (119675) | more than 5 years ago | (#25773287)

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 (3, Insightful)

IceMonkiesForSenate (1316211) | more than 5 years ago | (#25773281)

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 (4, Insightful)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 5 years ago | (#25773295)

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 (4, Informative)

HappySmileMan (1088123) | more than 5 years ago | (#25773309)

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 (1)

harmonica (29841) | more than 5 years ago | (#25773319)

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

They weren't socialists even though they called themselves that.

Transferring ownership of means of production exclusively to the state and then creating "social justice", the central part of the nazi policy, what's that according to you ?

Left or right ?

That wasn't a central (or any) part of the Nazi policy. The Nazis forced companies in some cases to go along with their needs, esp. during the war, but they weren't against private property. Some rich industrials were responsible for sponsoring the Nazi party early on--they wouldn't have done that for "socialists".

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi#Nazi_economic_policy [wikipedia.org]

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand (2, Insightful)

lukas84 (912874) | more than 5 years ago | (#25773117)

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 (5, Insightful)

the_other_chewey (1119125) | more than 5 years ago | (#25773353)

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 (3, Insightful)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 5 years ago | (#25772953)

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 [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Germany#Freedom_of_Speech [wikipedia.org]
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 (5, Insightful)

lukas84 (912874) | more than 5 years ago | (#25772971)

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 (4, Insightful)

corsec67 (627446) | more than 5 years ago | (#25773031)

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 (3, Insightful)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 5 years ago | (#25773075)

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 (5, Insightful)

Alex Belits (437) | more than 5 years ago | (#25773153)

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 (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25773185)

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.

I wouldn't really attribute it to regions, and instead to groups.

Left-Wing prefers to undermine peoples freedoms for "the good cause", like in this case, morality. Without considering the impect.

Right-Wing prefers individual freedoms over the hissy-fits of a a few minorities. Like drawings of certain prophets, or jokes about our strongly pigmented fellow men.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand (2, Insightful)

Jerry (6400) | more than 5 years ago | (#25773269)

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 (2)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 5 years ago | (#25773191)

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 (1)

flnca (1022891) | more than 5 years ago | (#25773305)

Associating islam, an ideology stating DIRECTLY that "there must always be war" with war, that will get those laws invoked.

It's because not all Muslims are supportive of war, and they'll be the first to feel offended when hearing something like that.

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.

You should do some research into how many Muslim preachers have been imprisoned for inciting hatred against other people, and how many are under surveillance by the Constitution Protection.

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.

That would also constitute incitement of hatred. BTW, I live in Germany and have never heard anyone saying something like that. The USA is still immensely popular in Germany.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25773207)

As a nigger, I must say that you even mentioning the word "race" is offensive to me.

Only those of African descent [harmonicanecklace.com] are allowed to say the word "nigger" and have a Black Entertainment Channel [bet.com] . Not only do you snotty-ass caucasians, littledick Asians, and fence-jumping Hispanics don't get your own racial entertainment channels, you're not even allowed to mention race; lest you be a raciss 'n' shit.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand (1)

HappySmileMan (1088123) | more than 5 years ago | (#25773129)

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

Well yes, but I for one think that it's stupid, they should be about stopping violence and discrimination, not someone making nigger jokes.
Of course once you try to stop violence people claim you must stop "incitement to violence", which is a blanket term they use for nigger jokes and using the word "black" instead of "coloured".

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand (1)

Artraze (600366) | more than 5 years ago | (#25773165)

>> most anti racism laws undermine Free Speech.
> A big part of anti-racism laws is to prevent offensive speech as it relates to race, right?

Right, but another big part is preventing discriminatory actions, like not hiring someone because of their race. Also, hate crime legislation (where the punishment is escalated if the victim's race plays a prominent factor). I can't see either of these as being protected speech. Thus, the 'most'.

(Incidentally, I would personally say that very few anti racism laws actually undermine free speech. Especially since it only takes a couple laws to cover all speech related racism, and lots more to cover all the other cases.)

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand (1)

lukas84 (912874) | more than 5 years ago | (#25773195)

preventing discriminatory actions

Something which, in many cases, is just not possible a pure hippie mindfuck.

Let's assume we have a small business owner with a 5 employees. 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?

"Anti-hate" laws are not -at all- anti hate. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25773141)

That's why Obama wants the same laws in the US. After all can't have people questioning why a certain name "allah" was mentioned right before 3000 american civilians died in an attack ...

That would be "intolerant" and "hateful", now wouldn't it ? Static that the founder of an ideology that kills hundreds daily was a paedophilic massacring thief. That mohamed "the prophet" was a paedophilic massacrer, a fact fully acknowledged at least 5 times daily by every last muslims. Their commitment to repeating those crimes, to be exact, is what is mentioned 5 times daily.

Such things, you see "propagate hate". I fully agree they should be banned. Let's start by burning the quran :

Muslims are the filthiest beasts on earth

that last statement comes literally from the quran (8:55). I just switched "infidels" and "muslims"

Women are mere cattle
Men are superior to women
Kill them, wherever they can be found
Fight and kill until we are the only ones left
Rape the women of the enemy
There must always be war. It's good for us
Every last muslim has sold his soul to allah for paradise. allah's orders are to fight, kill and die in his name

All these are from the quran. Let's ban hate. Ban islam. Ban the constant killings. Let's keep our world free.

But you can be absolutely sure that banning hate is one thing those "anti-hate" laws will never do.

Re:"Anti-hate" laws are not -at all- anti hate. (1)

Vexorian (959249) | more than 5 years ago | (#25773303)

Obama won, fucking get over it, thanks.

MOD PARENT UP (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25773345)

The Islamic savages are by far the most feral beasts imaginable. They rape and pillage and massacre, and then they point to the koran and try to say that they're simply defending themselves.

Bullshit. Their diseased culture spreads like filth throughout the civilized Americas and Europe. They're malevolent parasites. They come to American and European colleges and indulge in Western decadence while simultaneously cursing it.

The Islamic savage in America's typical weekday, when they're not trying to game the visa system through trying to marry a citizen or sneak their parasitic family into the U.S., sounds something like this: "Insh'Allah, I will snort a few lines of cocaine and chase after white girls, but Islam -- submission -- is the only way, god willing, to stop the Zionist pigs and their American puppets. Now, brother, I will go out dancing while dressed like a gaudy Eurotrash joke and hope that Allah will forgive my solicitation of anal sex in the mens' restroom as well as having poor taste in stale techno music. (this paragraph is based on a true story)

They are infantile savages -- the civilized world treats them as such because they rationalize their cowardly suicide bombings as "Waaaaaah! Nobody understands us and the only thing we understand is a spanking! Waaah!"

While it is true that the only concepts they understand are those of violence, we must stop seeing them as developmentally disabled powder kegs of rage and hatred and begin to see them as the next manifestation of the Nazis and act preemptively to wipe them from the face of the earth.

Even the touchy-feely animal-loving liberals know this.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand (1)

flnca (1022891) | more than 5 years ago | (#25773335)

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 [wikipedia.org] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Germany#Freedom_of_Speech [wikipedia.org] It's scary really. I said only a few days ago that I would never visit or stop over in Germany.

These laws are necessary. Had they not existed after WWII, the Commies or the Nazis would've eaten Western Germany for breakfast. Besides, the Axis Powers have had a say in the design of Basic Law (Grundgesetz). Nonetheless, without those laws, we would've seen both right-wing and left-wing extremists in parliament. Thankfully, we were spared, thanks to the laws. Those parties should realize that protecting democracy is a noble goal. We do not want any dictatorship ever again. We had enough of that, I guess.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25773349)

Really scary, really. Better stay, where you are, where noone wants to do this.

From wikipedia:

During the Allied occupation of Germany, the media were controlled by the occupying forces. The policy rationales differed among the occupying powers, but there was resentment in literary and journalistic circles in many parts of the country. Undesired publishing efforts were unilaterally blocked by the occupying forces.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand (0)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#25772957)

Ok, granted, not in German, but is there anyone in Germany using the internet and NOT able to read English?

Does it matter? de.wikipedia.org still works.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand (1)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 5 years ago | (#25772973)

But wikipedia.de (which presumably is the one that the general public of Germany is familiar with) doesn't, and it's not even allowed to link to de.wikipedia.org

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#25772997)

wikipedia.org links to de.wikipedia.org on the front page.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25773021)

It's still obviously going to cause confusion and probably a large number of people will either not bother to figure a way around the block, or not think to use wikipedia.org. Or even know that there IS a wikipedia.org. Remember the rule that 19 out of 20 computer users are pathetically systems-illiterate.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand (1)

rugatero (1292060) | more than 5 years ago | (#25773321)

Remember the rule that 19 out of 20 computer users are pathetically systems-illiterate.

Be that as it may, de.wikipedia.org [google.de] is still very easy to find.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#25773047)

wikipedia.de seems to be explaining the situation on it's home page (or it's telling a funny joke--I don't read German), so any Germans that don't know about de.wikipedia.org yet will soon enough.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25773041)

In fact, any google search returns de.wikipedia.org sites. You'd never notice wikipedia.de is down.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand (1)

ushering05401 (1086795) | more than 5 years ago | (#25772991)

First the security tools, now this... I used to want to emigrate to Germany.

Instead of having national moments of silence to commemorate calamity after the fact, how about we do it before, like now.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand (2, Interesting)

lukas84 (912874) | more than 5 years ago | (#25773205)

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 :)

He successfully took down another site (4, Funny)

cjfs (1253208) | more than 5 years ago | (#25773125)

... his own [lutz-heilmann.info] .

Please contact the server administrator, [no address given]

Re:Mr. Heilmann's party (1)

Lonewolf666 (259450) | more than 5 years ago | (#25773263)

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.

I can tell you more about his party:
The "Linkspartei" (literally translates as "left party") consists partly of former members of the SPD (moderate socialists) and partly of former members of the SED (the ruling party of the old East Germany dictatorship). Plus probably some other people from the far left political spectrum.

Personally, I consider them unfit to govern a democratic country (and probably a non-democratic either, considering the collapse of East Germany). The only political camp I have a worse opinion of are the neo-Nazis.

Re:Mr. Heilmann, you should talk to Mrs. Streisand (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25773301)

this site has the best rebuttal Ive seen so far to this issue

http://notimeforclocks.wordpress.com

Streisand Effect (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25772931)

He should've checked that one out before he started this mess.

I had no idea who this guy was before, nor cared about him. Now i do.

holy crap (1)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 5 years ago | (#25772937)

I want to know who these judges are that keep granting absurd injunctions. Is it really enough to just ask to take down any site you want? Wikileaks, and now wikipedia itself? Has anyone checked if this judge is still alive and it's not just his clerk rubber stamping a signature on every piece of paper that lands in his inbox? If he is alive I'd like to see him sitting in a defendant's chair intead of pompously in his dubious majesty up on the big throne.

Re:holy crap (1)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 5 years ago | (#25773033)

I want to know who these judges are that keep granting absurd injunctions. Is it really enough to just ask to take down any site you want?

Whoever this judge is probably subscribes to the same school of thought as that judge in Kentucky who ordered a batch of domain names transferred to the state.

Oops (4, Funny)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 5 years ago | (#25772939)

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 (4, Funny)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#25772969)

Stasiand effect?

Re:Oops (1)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 5 years ago | (#25773053)

YHBT

Re:Oops (3, Funny)

future assassin (639396) | more than 5 years ago | (#25773197)

> 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.

Typical Left-wing move (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25773311)

The suppression of free speech is standard operating procedure for the Left.
No surprise a former Fascist/Communist secret policeman finds himself so at home in the Left-wing.

Is your hate politically correct hate?
Do you believe that racism is wrong unless you hate white people?
Do you believe that sexism is wrong unless you hate men?
Do you believe that sexual discrimination is wrong unless you hate heterosexuals?
Do you believe that religious intolerance is wrong unless you hate Christians?
Do you believe that freedom of speech involves censoring offensive non-Politically Correct speech?
Do you believe that DoubleThink is hard and that DoubleThink is easy?
Do you keep such an open mind that your brain fell out?
Are you a hypocrite and a bigot? Do your friends praise you for it and call you morally superior? Do you think that your bigotry makes you a better person than others?

If your hate is politically correct hate then the political left is the place for you.

So what's the problem? (2, Insightful)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#25772947)

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

So what part of that is he claiming is illegal?

Re:So what's the problem? (4, Funny)

wild_quinine (998562) | more than 5 years ago | (#25773061)

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? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25773257)

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? (5, Informative)

Kjella (173770) | more than 5 years ago | (#25773089)

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? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25773167)

Look up "StÃrerhaftung". Basically, what it boils down to is that when someone - such as the German Wikimedia chapter - facilitates a violation of the law, they can be required to take (reasonable, I assume) steps to prevent this from happening. Think DMCA takedown notices.

In other words, the guy can't attack the Wikimedia Foundation itself, since they're in the USA; but the "wikipedia.de" domain is owned by the German chapter.

Of course, since all people need to do to get around this is type in "de.wikipedia.org" instead (and seriously, who's not already doing this?), it's less than useless, and - due to the aforementioned Streisand effect - may well turn out to be counterproductive.

But then, who knows what this really is about: maybe he's just an unimportant, obscure third-rate politician who wants to make a name for himself and who figures there's no such thing as bad publicity.

How can this happen? (2, Insightful)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 5 years ago | (#25772949)

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

Re:How can this happen? (4, Interesting)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 5 years ago | (#25773083)

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.

Re:How can this happen? (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 5 years ago | (#25773343)

True but as far as I'm concerned if something is 100% unexaggerated truth then it's not defamatory or if it was then the person who committed the act is to blame not the person that reported the truth.

Germany does not have enough respect for freedom (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25772951)

of speech.

That's obvious with their thought crime laws. It's at the other extreme of the political spectrum than in the 3rd reich, but still tyrannical, and modeled after the belief that the state knows best. Much of the world is actually this way.

I wish instead of an english pariliament system after the war, they introduced more the American concept of freedom there after WW2 with a bill of right blocking off the government from intruding in certain areas. A clear deliniation where you can tell the government to stuff it, that they are not the gods of destiny.

I say this as a German eyeing the EU in brussels wearily, as they churn out law after law while having no directly elected representation. They know want to ban funny shaped fruit and vegetables from the supermarket. Idiotic bureacrats.

All doubts are gone (5, Insightful)

Charles Dodgeson (248492) | more than 5 years ago | (#25772977)

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.

Re:All doubts are gone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25773351)

Yeah, but this also makes the point that a former DDR Stasi criminal still has a lot of power.

FAIL! (4, Insightful)

Chris Snook (872473) | more than 5 years ago | (#25772985)

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

Re:FAIL! (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 5 years ago | (#25773139)

It reminds me of this epic failure [slashdot.org] . God, has it really been that long...

Is Obama's past on wikipedia ? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25772987)

The real question is ... how long until Obama does the same ? For now wikipedia's idiotically on his side (like all of the press).

What happens when that, inevitably, stops. When leftist policies once again prove to be failures, independant of any skin color on any leftist political leader.

Whether that's Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Hugo Chavez, or Barack Hussein Obama. Leftist policies will blow up in the face of the American people just like they blew up for Russia, Germany, China, Vietnam, Venezuela and so many others.

But I guess we have to ONCE AGAIN get our faces blown off before we see what's happening. And then it'll be back to lefties and democrats blaming some scapegoat, perhaps even Olame-a himself for being "evil incarnate", like they had to do to every leader that implemented their policies. Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, the problem is not those assholes. There are always assholes. The problem was "social justice", the problem was "national healthcare", the problem was "everyone their fair share".

Not some idiot who wants to kill, but the ideology that lets him organize thousands to do his killing :

the "social justice"

I just hope the "this time it will be different for it is a black guy that pushes it" crowd has the balls to stand up and be judged for what they are. It didn't help anything at all when the leftist asshole had yellow skin. It did not help in Zimbabwe that the idiot in question had black skin. It will not help with this one.

It's the ideology. The "social justice". Not even a thousand atomic bombs could hope to do the damage, to wreak death like social justice has done, and continues to do.

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

Obama - not MY president. Not now, never.

Re:Is Obama's past on wikipedia ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25773029)

<img src=whiny baby.jpg>

Well, OK, then, just imagine one.

Re:Is Obama's past on wikipedia ? (3, Insightful)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | more than 5 years ago | (#25773105)

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.

Re:Is Obama's past on wikipedia ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25773171)

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

Where was this talk when Bush was in office?

It's funny how when the Dems get control we hear a bunch of "shut up and put up" bullshit but if a Republican were to do that it would be modded down -1 Nazi. Or is it because it's the way *you* want it that suddenly we should all unify under the common vision of your choice? Why is it that we should suddenly lose our voice of dissent? Because you think what's going on today is ok?

You're the one who needs to fuck off. But then again, I didn't expect anything better.

Re:Is Obama's past on wikipedia ? (2, Insightful)

lukas84 (912874) | more than 5 years ago | (#25773243)

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.

Re:Is Obama's past on wikipedia ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25773285)

I agree with you that leftist policies suck when implemented poorly.

Ah so now we see the problem. You're a socialist. You believe having the state play mommy works. Why otherwise would you make a statement like that ? Leftist policies do NOT work. Never. They cannot work. Every last economist will tell you so, and explain why (in a nutshell : because people getting money for free don't feel like working for it, so nothing gets done. Not even food production gets done and then the leftist politicians use that as an excuse to decide who lives and who dies. Happened in Russia, China, Vietnam, Cuba, everywhere. The problem is not those countries. The problem is the leftist policy).

So you fuck off with partisan bullshit, especially when your party is the communists. When "it's just Stalin's fault", and lefties go free. You think leftist idiocy gets elevated above criticism merely because another leftist idiot got elected ? Obama DID promise everyone 5000$. A promise he's absolutely sure not to keep, nor does he even intend to keep it, and he won the vote.

He lied, exploited idiots' gullability and got elected. People do NOT need to have peace with that. And yes I blame McCain equally for not attacking him over it.

What happened to "dissent is the highest form of patriottism ?".

Hey Olame-a - Where's my 5000$ ?

Re:Is Obama's past on wikipedia ? (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#25773107)

Does anybody ever wonder if these trolls might be Obama-supporters attempting to show non-supporters in a bad light through their idiocy?

Re:Is Obama's past on wikipedia ? (1)

Alex Belits (437) | more than 5 years ago | (#25773211)

I don't think, Republicans need any help in looking bad.

Reliably sourced and encyclopedic? (2, Funny)

davidwr (791652) | more than 5 years ago | (#25773155)

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.

Not a good idea.... (4, Insightful)

jawtheshark (198669) | more than 5 years ago | (#25773011)

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.

Re:Not a good idea.... (-1, Offtopic)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 5 years ago | (#25773291)

So where does Obama fit in with you ? A shady past is kind-of the least you can say. He never acknowledged any of it - and got away with it.

Summary wrong: porn, not Stasi (1)

Badge 17 (613974) | more than 5 years ago | (#25773015)

It's well-known that he worked for the Stasi, it seems, but he didn't like the claims that he didn't finish his university degree, or that he worked for a porn-related business (I don't know if either of these is true). The reason he's dealing with the forwarding is that wikipedia.de is under German jurisdiction, but de.wikipedia.org is not.

The lesson here is: totalitarian repression is A-OK, but porn is over the line.

German article here:

Re:Summary wrong: porn, not Stasi (1)

Badge 17 (613974) | more than 5 years ago | (#25773025)

Oops, I mean: German article here [focus.de]

domain name (2, Interesting)

bzuro (1205892) | more than 5 years ago | (#25773027)

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

.de is the German national domain (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 5 years ago | (#25773161)

Getting the domain registrar for .de to shut down or redirect the domain would be the next step.

Re:domain name (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25773271)

According to the DENIC (the organization governing the .de ccTLD) either the domain holder or his administrative contact must be a resident of Germany, so you can't really hold a .de domain and at the same time escape the German jurisdiction completely.

Even if you could, I'm pretty sure that a court could order the DENIC to take the domain away from you, if you use it for illegal purposes but you can't be reached directly.

Re:domain name (1)

wikinerd (809585) | more than 5 years ago | (#25773331)

I really wonder why they need a .de domain name at all, isn't the .org domain enough? But I also wonder why they should have any domain name at all. DNS relies on central servers not controlled by you, which is a bad thing because whoever controls these servers can influence you, and this is one of the reasons I dislike DNS. I see nothing wrong in setting up a non-DNS site with an IP address or multiple IP addresses as its address. That way your site is totally independent from the DNS system.

ddos www.lutz-heilmann.de (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25773039)

mr heilmann forces wikipedia.de off the net, we force his site off the net.

Internal Server Error
The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request.

ooops, too bad his site isnt working ...

Lutz Helimann, ex Stasi? (4, Insightful)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 5 years ago | (#25773055)

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?

Re:Lutz Helimann, ex Stasi? (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#25773173)

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

German people, I assume.

Re:Lutz Helimann, ex Stasi? (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 5 years ago | (#25773337)

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

I work with some folks from the former east Germany ... frighteningly, a lot of them seem to look back on the communist days as "good times." There is even a word in German for this: Ostalgie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostalgie).

Of course, all of them work now in the former west Germany now.

It's kind of creepy, when I think who the hell would shoot to death people trying to escape their country.

Translation? (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#25773065)

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

Re:Translation? (2, Informative)

Snowblindeye (1085701) | more than 5 years ago | (#25773251)

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/ [wikimedia.de] That you for your help.

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

Re:Translation? (1)

rk87 (622509) | more than 5 years ago | (#25773283)

Due to an interim decision by the Court of Lübeck on November 13 2008, initiated by Lutz Heilmann, MdB (Die Linke), is the Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. forbidden from "redirecting the Internet address wikipedia.de to de.wikipedia.org", as long as there are certain statements about Lutz Heilmann on de.wikipedia.org. Therefore, until further notice the offering of wikipedia.de must be discontinued. Wikipedia Deutschland e.V. has filed for an appeal.

Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. is not the provider of the Wikipedia residing under de.wikipedia.org, and has no influence upon the content in the online encyclopedia. Rather, Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. is a non-profit association for the advancement of free knowledge, which merely advances the use of Wikipedia. The operator of Wikipedia is the therein identified Wikipedia Foundation, an incorporated foundation in Florida, USA, with its seat in San Francisco.

Good. its about time those wikihitlers get some (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25773087)

..arbitrary and punitive judgements that piss them off. Hey, wikihitlers!! How do you like it when someone else has the power to take your page off the internet, hey? You like being the victim of arbitrary and unfair judgements? No? So stop being such assholes in future then and maybe I'll care more next time.

wikipedia.. a useless and untrustworthy source of information. IMHO. Just because its free, it doesn't mean its better.

Michael (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25773093)

Best DUI Resources [legalx.net]

Working for them is not an indiscression (4, Insightful)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 5 years ago | (#25773099)

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.

a leftist that worked for the stasi? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25773119)

and here i thought they all did!

ta-ta-crash!

i'll be here all week, be sure to tip your waitresses.

E-Mail: lutz.heilmann@bundestag.de (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25773147)

Let him know what you think about this.

Encyclopedia Dramatica? (3, Interesting)

davidwr (791652) | more than 5 years ago | (#25773181)

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

Ironically, the article about him [encycloped...matica.com] 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!

He did it... (1)

sagematt (1251956) | more than 5 years ago | (#25773189)

for the lutz

Title is wrong. (3, Insightful)

jcr (53032) | more than 5 years ago | (#25773213)

Change "Politician" to "STASI snitch".

-jcr

wtf? (1)

benjonson (204985) | more than 5 years ago | (#25773225)

Secret police types are opposed to open information? Next thing we'll be reading is that bunny's are cute.

Actually... (2, Informative)

tmk (712144) | more than 5 years ago | (#25773245)

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.

Lutz or Clutz (1)

Ronald Dumsfeld (723277) | more than 5 years ago | (#25773339)

Surely this is political suicide? The German Wikipedia - as I understand it - carries a great deal of clout in the form of goodwill it has fostered.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>