The right game at the wrong game: Wikileaks help! Here is an interesting Article I take the liberty of copying LawBlog Udo Vetter. ;-) I hope this is clear, but the review provides some clarity on the question of whether one may now help Wikileaks or not. It is the nature of the case that all attempts to criminalize not only Wikileaks, but also those who want to support Wikileaks. The question of whether we like it because it was importance to freedom of press, freedom of expression puts an open question. Here is the link to LawBlog
http://www.lawblog.de/index.php/archives/2010/12/07/kriegsgerat-serverplatz/ 12/07/2010
military equipment A free server space, not guided by the public authority, subjected to censorship press is an essential element of a free State, in particular, is a free, regularly published political press for modern democracy is indispensable. Should citizens make political decisions, he must be fully informed, but also know the opinions and can weigh up to today, the others have formed. The press keeps this constant discussion going, they obtained the information himself takes this position and thus acts as an orienting force in the public debate. In it is articulated public opinion.
Federal Constitutional Court, Judgement of 5 mirror August 1966
Link The above four sets are now 44 years old. However, they actually contain all the answers to the questions facing us Germans in the WikiLeaks debate.
A question would be, for example, that German politicians, despite the steep templates from the U.S. are remarkably restrained in it, the editors of the Mirror, which further put the U.S. diplomat end Peschen the German public, to move into the vicinity of cyber-terrorism or treason.
Simply because they know that anyone who tried again to Franz-Josef Strauss, has taken a bloody nose. Recent those were the investigators, which felts the Cicero-editing, because they arrive in the trail of a mole in the Federal wanted. Aid to the mystery of the betrayal was accused Cicero journalists. An evil construct simply because disclosure of secrets can commit only a civil servant. This has the Federal Constitutional Court then dissected in a new decision in principle on press freedom very painful for those responsible.
The judges made clear that searches and seizures by the press members are not permitted if they are exclusively or primarily the purpose to determine the identity of the informant (Cicero, Judgement of 27 February 2007).
Link These are milestones.
But beyond that found from the Spiegel Affair to Cicero in all decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court on a clear message that the press should just rely on the information that superficially adheres to the stigma of illegal immigrants. There are simply not reporting ban on leaked documents from government ministries, political groups, intelligence services and police authorities, these may be two or three times as "confidentially" or even "secret" stamped.
are decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court has clearly read that the press of their role as 4th Violence in general is just only if they abnudelt not only press releases from politics, administration and courts. No, they can and should connect to other authorities on their feet by just information leakage used to bring the uncomfortable things to light. For the first meets the press the claim of the citizen to "full information", through the true state of the society in which he lives. Press freedom also includes the entire value chain. Informants and protection of sources are therefore no phrases from spy movies, but solid legal reality.
Thus, no one put away as the editors of the Mirror for their "revelations", so little you could do it with the makers in Germany by WikiLeaks.
The only uncertainty was whether WikiLeaks really "press" is. It is for me but no doubt. Although limited the activity of the documentation on WikiLeaks. But just the documentation is a core function of journalism. Moreover, times are changing. The Internet now allows even bought a brand new journalism by facts. Because there are different from print media no limits on the amount of information and no limitation of the public. WikiLeaks has grasped the first, it reacted brilliantly and so probably the world's currently most talked about and made probably the most important medium of all.
The policy response speaks for itself anyway.
The country of origin of the message dispatches, is stupid enough in itself, nor haven of almost unlimited freedom of expression. But rather then to be proud to take matters to keep fit and perhaps in secret to grind their teeth, demanding U.S. politicians and even newspaper journalists disclosed the death of the Front Runners Julian Assange, the classification of WikiLeaks as a terrorist organization and a law shortly Whistleblowing times each, to the detriment of the United States is under severe penalties. Moreover
should have led the first government pressure to dry out that private companies such as Amazon, PayPal, Mastercard and Visa now WikiLeaks remove the space and financial channels. Which is probably due to the remaining national freedom not a U.S. court would have approved is so on the terms and conditions implemented by companies. This not even seriously laminated Foul Play is likely to cost the U.S. in the long term probably more sympathetic than they already were losing by not more unstoppable message dispatches ever.
If it still goes merrily on, could maybe even meet dramatic visions. For example, those that WikiLeaks could be the trigger of a war that is fought on the battlefield Internet. On one side of the front of governments and companies that want to reverse the loss of control over the Internet. On the other hand their own citizens who can not like this and in turn take up arms - keyboard, technology understanding, Data lines and space. The call to make
WikiLeaks, the page on as many computers simultaneously available could be the first real mobilization of the non-governmental side of this conflict go down in history. The question of the risks of foot soldiers in this case to answer in my view, quite simple. There are no significant, if you can live with that, maybe more to get a visa for the USA.
is some places, yes even whispered, who helps WikiLeaks could possibly make a criminal offense, because he reveals state secrets, or even committing treason. This is where once again looking back. The Spiegel quoted in its historical title of "affective ready for defense "of internal government documents. Although the judges discussed the possibility to render the external security of the Federal Republic was threatened, but even they saw no purpose in Rudolf Augstein and his editors in the direction of a treason.
It should also be in the WikiLeaks documents. It is the parties give priority to the detection of irregularities and (unknown) political mechanisms, not about the security of the state to inflict a severe disadvantage. Where else to say this is that the thrust of the relevant penal provisions to acts detrimental to Germany's. The U.S. and France are at most about the international applicability of German criminal law included. But it requires some legal acrobatics. Cicero would approve.
A state secret is only as long as a state secret, as it is secret. Previously published information are therefore no longer a secret. It also raises the question whether someone who provides the server space available, the content of a user does at all its own and personally liable. Under German law is one of accommodation of other data provider. As such, it adheres the first place, nor for the content of his "clients" as the commercial provider, in which the server is rented.
In this context, may be quite the hat to those German providers prefer to not walk the way from Amazon, Paypal, Mastercard and Visa. Many providers are now expressly stated that they will not cancel, therefore the customer contract because support this WikiLeaks. Those who
be damaged by hail, the provider itself would not privilege, should his "guest" give free rein as possible on the server. Conversely, those who independently decide what content should take the "guest" on the server makes through testing and release its contents. This leads quickly according to their own liability.
uncertainty remains as yet the copyright. At least for the non-affected Audience, it would of course be an attractive idea that Hillary Clinton at the regional court of Hamburg says. It should, however, significant setbacks for the U.S. administration will be necessary before it embarks on this smooth terrain. Slippery because documents are protected by copyright authorities in the U.S. and Germany, much less, say, the script for the television series "24".
This is not a call to go to war. But no warning before it.
