Comment by chihuahua
5 months ago
Interesting that a single cranky ex-Stasi employee can block Wikipedia for all of Germany because he's mad that Wikipedia states the proven fact that he is a former Stasi employee.
Do German courts not review the facts before granting injunctions?
As a rule short term injunctions (in this case 2 days) have minimal fact checking.
That’s kind of the inherent tradeoff for courts being able to make really rapid decisions. It’s useful if say someone’s house was going to be destroyed tomorrow you can’t exactly do a lot of fact checking or the damage will have been done, but it means a lot of seemingly silly things happen.
The goal is prevent harm while doing basic fact checking in preparation for some longer review, and again 2 days later the court didn’t extend the injunction after review.
In many legal jurisdictions, something being true does not necessarily make it non-defamatory. Don't know if that's the case in Germany.
I don't agree, but it's a legal reality.
IANAL. In Germany, something being true makes it non-defamatory [1].
> Wer in Beziehung auf einen anderen eine Tatsache behauptet oder verbreitet, welche denselben verächtlich zu machen oder in der öffentlichen Meinung herabzuwürdigen geeignet ist, wird, wenn nicht diese Tatsache erweislich wahr ist, mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu einem Jahr oder mit Geldstrafe und, wenn die Tat öffentlich, in einer Versammlung oder durch Verbreiten eines Inhalts (§ 11 Absatz 3) begangen ist, mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu zwei Jahren oder mit Geldstrafe bestraft.
I'll just translate the important condition for being punished for defamation ("Üble Nachrede"):
> [...] if not this fact is demonstrably true [...]
I've intentionally kept the somewhat weird word order while translating. It's just as weird to read for a German. It's an old law.
[1] https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__186.html
It's just as weird to read for a German
indeed as a german i have a hard time to read this in any way other than "if the fact is not demonstrably true", which means if it was true it would be allowed. but intuitively it does make sense that true statements can be used to defame someone and that should be limited. among other things the right to be forgotten is relevant here, and also the problem of taking things out of context and beyond the audience it was intended for. a statement that i make among my friends should not allow anyone to defame or embarrass me by making it public to a wider audience.