Heh and now german courts are objecting to wikipedia.

[geni]

And you base this claim on your extensive research into German jurisdiction, I suppose?

Or is this just a case of someone being hair trigger in their condemnation of other countries, as well as making them insanely broad?

Are you trying to claim that it is otherwise? It is based on the feedback from germans commenting on events. Also not the first time this has happened.

 

[geni]

Geni, I really wish you would post in English. That being said, you ignore the huge difference between a court acting on an injunction being sought by a private citizen, and a court acting on behalf of the state. There is a huge difference between the two cases, which you have evaded noticing.

Not really (private citizen? the guy is an MP?). How the courts react is decided by the legislation of the state. Under US law for example he would be considered a public figure and it would likely be suggested that he could do very little. Under UK law he would have had a hard time getting the injunction but little problem in winning any resulting lible case (so in the UK while the libel system may be deeply damageing to free speach you do in theory at least get a chance to defend yourself).

In adition such orders only have any validity since they are backed by the state.

Perphaps we should simplify. Suppose a state set up a situation where any site could be blocked if a private individual asked for any reason. Would you still argue that the state wasn't blocking the site?

 

[dudalb]

I am not a big Wikipedia fan but the German Action is drop dead stupid.
This is what some of us mean by "Nanny Government".

 

[Chaos]

Are you trying to claim that it is otherwise? It is based on the feedback from germans commenting on events. Also not the first time this has happened.

Your claim, you prove it. That´s how it works.

 

[geni]

Your claim, you prove it. That´s how it works.

Prove oh dear.

Well lets look at a couple of cases. The Tron hacker case when an order was awarded against wikipedia (which for obvious reasons the wikimedia foundation ignored) rather rapiadly and without telling wikipedia until after the order was granted (5 days after although that can safely be assumed to be accidental since it seems doubtful that trying to send such order via russia is standard practice).

A second order was then awarded aginst the german wikimedia chapter.

Now compareing this case to english derived common law is somewhat tricky since common law would likely regard there as being no case to answer however it generaly demands that notice be given (US consisution tends to stress this even further) and in this case it was not.

Events in the current case transpired in much the same way (except the person in question would have a case under common law). Again an injunction with no warning.

Now you can argue against this but would need to be able to show that the german courts were acting against wikipedia and the german wikipedia chapter in a highly atypical manner.