Men sue Wikipedia for continuing to publish their names

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by James R, Nov 16, 2009.

?

What is the morally right thing to do here? (See OP)

  1. I'm American. Wikipedia should remove their names.

    1 vote(s)
    4.5%
  2. I'm American. Wikipedia should NOT remove their names.

    13 vote(s)
    59.1%
  3. I'm European. Wikipedia should remove their names.

    1 vote(s)
    4.5%
  4. I'm European. Wikipedia should NOT remove their names.

    2 vote(s)
    9.1%
  5. I'm not from Europe or America. Wikipedia should remove their names.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  6. I'm not from Europe or America. Wikipedia should NOT remove their names.

    4 vote(s)
    18.2%
  7. I'm not sure what is the right thing to do here.

    1 vote(s)
    4.5%
  8. Don't care/no opinion/don't want to publish my opinion.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Link to full story:

    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 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?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    history must be recorded regardless of how anyone feels about the matter.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    leopold99:

    Do you think a person's prior crimes should follow them around for the rest of their lives, even after they have paid their penalty?

    To compare, if you commit certain minor offences you do not necessarily get a police record, or else your record gets wiped after a number of years. Isn't this a similar kind of thing?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    yes and no.
    the publics knowledge on the subject should be relegated to historys record after a certain period of time.
    on the other hand a persons crime should follow them around to aid in establishing an MO and a psych profile. this information should be considered private or privileged and to be shared only among cops, FBI, etc.
    you know what they say "once in the system always in the system."
     
  8. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    If you commit certain minor offenses as a juvenile, they may be expunged. But this was murder. Furthermore, what about this:

    The two men were sentenced to life in 1993. They were released in 2007 and 2008
    So they're sentenced to LIFE IN PRISON, yet they're out filing lawsuits to cover up their crime 14 years later? What kind of crap is that? These murderers should still be rotting away in prison, not causing trouble filing lawsuits trying to cover up their guilt.

    This is one more reason I strongly support the death penalty. Once the liberals manage to get the death penalty off the table, they begin chipping away at "Life in Prison" and we end up with this kind of bullshit.
     
  9. nietzschefan Thread Killer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,721
    On the one hand, this pretty much makes it so they can only be criminals or french foreign legionnaires. On the other hand....fuck them.
     
  10. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    A matter of courtesy

    It seems to me that the question pertains to the abstract notion of the historical record.

    What is the cutoff point in either direction? Does it matter if you got a Minor In Possession when you were nineteen? To the other extreme what of history's monsters? At what point do people not get excused from their crimes?

    It seems to me the historical record is the historical record, and if we start snipping out bits of it for the sake of courtesy, we're probably going to be pretty courteous about it.
     
  11. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Think of it this way, if George Bush did thism would you agree to it?

    They murdered someone, if they don't like that it has consequences, they can always switch places with their victim
     
  12. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    james my guess would be "it depends where the trials held". Ie under what Saudi Arabian legislation did the "families of the victoms of sep 11" sue the Saudi goverment under? They didnt, they sued them in a US court. Now if the same principle applies here the men win by defult, ie the US is in breach of the german law.

    I might point out that Australia is in a similar case against a US website, in our case its because of the harasment and slanderious allegations which have been placed on that site. So far the various avinues havent gone well (as far as i know), not the civil, criminal OR political
     
  13. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    i hope you don't jugde all americans by a few websites.
     
  14. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    why would i?
    its Australians posting the crap on there for the most part (well except the death threats against the pollies who are complaining about the site). The problem isnt the country, its the stupid first ammendment laws
     
  15. one_raven God is a Chinese Whisper Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,433
    It shoul dbe kept there.
    If the German government wants to block access to the Wikipedia website within their country (they obviously don't have a problem with censorship) then it is on them to do such.
     
  16. CheskiChips Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,538
    I voted I'm American. Wikipedia should remove their names.

    There's one thing I don't like about the American justice system. Punishments follow people long after they've been repaid. I don't believe it should ever be removed off their records, if someone wants to look up the details of the crime they should be clear and present. However - publicly posting them in places were the common individual can find them is somewhat cruel. There are legal reasons they should never be purged from records that relevant people haveve the knowledge of how to access (Lawyers, Employers, Private Investigators, etc), but to make them so accessible that people who don't even intend to find them have access is ethically wrong. Most people can't / won't read law documents.

    This isn't an issue of Censorship, this is an issue of common decency - if they paid for their crime do they deserve to be punished until death? - assuming they're repentant, no.

    Something to consider; they might be filing suit because their children are paying the price for their crimes? Should public embarrassment be on them, their fathers, their mothers...too?
     
  17. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    there is a Bill currently before the SA parliment to deal with whats called "expired convictions". Ie those things like say the drunk and disorderly you got when you were 18. If this law passes (and it should) then ONLY the courts and the police would be able to see these convictions. They would still show up in the police database but when you went to an employer and they asked for a police clearance the clearance would come back clean. There are cirtain crimes that would never be "spent", rape, murder ect
     
  18. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    No, it's a murder. There is no country I know of in which murder is one of those minor offenses that gets wiped off of records.

    Likewise, the wiping of minor offenses off of records applies only to court records, and not to press freedoms, is almost every country I know of. The press generally remains free to report on the offenses in perpetuity, although the lack of official records can make this difficult to accomplish.
     
  19. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    how do you repay a crime? the question is...has the person changed? if all you had to do was 'repay' then you wouldnt learn. so realistically this is not helping.
     
  20. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    afa the op, is this some kind of joke?
     
  21. CheskiChips Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,538
    Not exactly the issue. The point is this - if you're growing up and your father committed murder, this would change how people treat you. If your son committed murder, how would this affect the way people treat you? Sometimes public privacy for individuals needs to be protected in order to protect everyone around them, the innocent people who pay for the crimes of their relatives. By the way; the person is "Repaying" with a life sentence...
     
  22. Orleander OH JOY!!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,817
    I don't understand. Its wikipedia. Can't they go in there and delete their own names? If they hadn't raised a fuss would anyone have even noticed?
     
  23. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    Certainly, if they hadn't sued their names wouldn't have been fast-tracked to the top of the international news cycle. Now millions of people who'd never have heard of Wolfgang Werle and Manfred Lauber, or known that they are convicted murderers, or seen their photographs, are familiar with them.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page