[Foundation-l] YouPorn in Germany: Another ugly legal case - Wikimedia-l - lists.wikimedia.org

List overview All Threads
Download

[Foundation-l] YouPorn in Germany: Another ugly legal case

[Foundation-l] Best Wishes from...

[Foundation-l] Proposal for new...

Erik Moeller

22 Oct 2007 22 Oct '07

7:12 p.m.

Arcor, a major German ISP, is being forced to censor access to YouPorn.com because it doesn't comply with German requirements for restricting access to adult-only websites: http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/97676 The Landgericht Frankfurt has confirmed a preliminary injunction. This will still go through the courts for a while, but Arcor has already censored the website from its customers (and, in the first attempt to do so, also censored 3.5 million other random sites that were redirected from the same IP address!). This could become a pretty terrible precedent turning the German Internet into even more of a legal minefield than it already is. :-( At some point we may be faced with the choice to either apply a number of Germany-specific restrictions on our content, or have all Wikimedia projects be censored in Germany. I'd be inclined towards the latter. -- Toward Peace, Love & Progress: Erik DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.

Reply

Show replies by thread

Mathias Schindler

22 Oct 22 Oct

7:25 p.m.

On 10/22/07, Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

This could become a pretty terrible precedent turning the German Internet into even more of a legal minefield than it already is. :-( At some point we may be faced with the choice to either apply a number of Germany-specific restrictions on our content, or have all Wikimedia projects be censored in Germany. I'd be inclined towards the latter.

Youporn had the specific problem of providing hardcore pornography available to people without age verification. This is a problem we are actually not faced with (to a significant extend). Pictures of nudity are usually within educational articles about a particular subject, so there is - for us - no similar problem than the one Youporn faced. On top of that, we are no ISP, so that particular problem does not directly affect us. Even if a German ISP would be forced to block Wikipedia, it would not directly affect Wikipedia. Youpr0n is again free to provide whatever content they like, as long as people are able to reach that site. Of course, there is also the "climate", chilling effect and so on.

Reply

Erik Moeller

7:44 p.m.

On 10/22/07, Mathias Schindler <mathias.schindler(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Youporn had the specific problem of providing hardcore pornography available to people without age verification. This is a problem we are actually not faced with

Of course not. The risk here is of a slippery slope. If this goes through, ThePirateBay.org is next - and then _every_ website will be a potential target under German law, whether it targets a German speaking audience or not. There's a potential for things to get really ugly for German Internet users. -- Toward Peace, Love & Progress: Erik DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.

Reply

Sebastian Moleski

7:49 p.m.

On 10/22/07, Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

On 10/22/07, Mathias Schindler <mathias.schindler(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Youporn had the specific problem of providing hardcore pornography available to people without age verification. This is a problem we are actually not faced with

Of course not. The risk here is of a slippery slope. If this goes through, ThePirateBay.org is next - and then _every_ website will be a potential target under German law, whether it targets a German speaking audience or not. There's a potential for things to get really ugly for German Internet users.

It's just a preliminary injunction, not a final court ruling. I wouldn't get alarmed at this quite yet and prophesize the end of the internet in Germany. Sebastian

Reply

Waerth

7:58 p.m.

Sebastian Moleski wrote:

On 10/22/07, Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

On 10/22/07, Mathias Schindler <mathias.schindler(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Youporn had the specific problem of providing hardcore pornography available to people without age verification. This is a problem we are actually not faced with

Of course not. The risk here is of a slippery slope. If this goes through, ThePirateBay.org is next - and then _every_ website will be a potential target under German law, whether it targets a German speaking audience or not. There's a potential for things to get really ugly for German Internet users.

It's just a preliminary injunction, not a final court ruling. I wouldn't get alarmed at this quite yet and prophesize the end of the internet in Germany. Sebastian _______________

Unfortunately the trend seems worldwide that governments try to control more and more what their citizens do. This is not just a German thing. I notice it here where I life. And I see it happening in the Netherlands slowly but surely. Fortunately enough these trends usually only last for 10-30 years or so :( Waerth -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.

Reply

Gabe Johnson

8:34 p.m.

On 10/22/07, Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

Arcor, a major German ISP, is being forced to censor access to YouPorn.com because it doesn't comply with German requirements for restricting access to adult-only websites: http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/97676 The Landgericht Frankfurt has confirmed a preliminary injunction. This will still go through the courts for a while, but Arcor has already censored the website from its customers (and, in the first attempt to do so, also censored 3.5 million other random sites that were redirected from the same IP address!). This could become a pretty terrible precedent turning the German Internet into even more of a legal minefield than it already is. :-( At some point we may be faced with the choice to either apply a number of Germany-specific restrictions on our content, or have all Wikimedia projects be censored in Germany. I'd be inclined towards the latter. -- Toward Peace, Love & Progress: Erik DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.

Treat it like we do China, I would think. Unless we have any servers there? (toolserver, I think?) ~~~~ -- Absolute Power C^7rr8p£5 ab£$^u7£%y

Reply

Michael Bimmler

8:44 p.m.

On 10/22/07, Gabe Johnson <gjzilla(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 10/22/07, Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

Arcor, a major German ISP, is being forced to censor access to YouPorn.com because it doesn't comply with German requirements for restricting access to adult-only websites: http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/97676 The Landgericht Frankfurt has confirmed a preliminary injunction. This will still go through the courts for a while, but Arcor has already censored the website from its customers (and, in the first attempt to do so, also censored 3.5 million other random sites that were redirected from the same IP address!). This could become a pretty terrible precedent turning the German Internet into even more of a legal minefield than it already is. :-( At some point we may be faced with the choice to either apply a number of Germany-specific restrictions on our content, or have all Wikimedia projects be censored in Germany. I'd be inclined towards the latter. -- Toward Peace, Love & Progress: Erik DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.

Treat it like we do China, I would think. Unless we have any servers there? (toolserver, I think?) ~~~~

The toolserver is in Amsterdam, at the Kennisnet cluster. (I'm not commenting on whether this is relevant at all...just fact correcting ;-) Michael

-- Absolute Power C^7rr8p£5 ab£$^u7£%y _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Reply

Gabe Johnson

9:18 p.m.

On 10/22/07, Michael Bimmler <mbimmler(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 10/22/07, Gabe Johnson <gjzilla(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 10/22/07, Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

Arcor, a major German ISP, is being forced to censor access to YouPorn.com because it doesn't comply with German requirements for restricting access to adult-only websites: http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/97676 The Landgericht Frankfurt has confirmed a preliminary injunction. This will still go through the courts for a while, but Arcor has already censored the website from its customers (and, in the first attempt to do so, also censored 3.5 million other random sites that were redirected from the same IP address!). This could become a pretty terrible precedent turning the German Internet into even more of a legal minefield than it already is. :-( At some point we may be faced with the choice to either apply a number of Germany-specific restrictions on our content, or have all Wikimedia projects be censored in Germany. I'd be inclined towards the latter. -- Toward Peace, Love & Progress: Erik DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.

Treat it like we do China, I would think. Unless we have any servers there? (toolserver, I think?) ~~~~

The toolserver is in Amsterdam, at the Kennisnet cluster. (I'm not commenting on whether this is relevant at all...just fact correcting ;-) Michael > -- > Absolute Power > C^7rr8p£5 ab£$^u7£%y >

As long as we don't have assets there, we can treat it like this: http://preview.tinyurl.com/2znnxf Of course "Wikipedia blocked in Germany" would probably be a policy-changing headline. Maybe. ~~~~ -- Absolute Power C^7rr8p£5 ab£$^u7£%y

Reply

P. Birken

9:27 p.m.

I have very serious doubts that any content on wikipedia would be considered pornographic by a german court, since it is always in encyclopedic context and thus by the german definition of pornography not pornographic, since the aim is not the arousal of the reader, but his education. The project in trouble here is not Wikipedia, but Commons, since there context is missing. Bye, Philipp

Reply

effe iets anders

10:04 p.m.

You can also view the images on wikipedia without any context by clicking on the image. Lodewijk 2007/10/22, P. Birken <pbirken(a)gmail.com>om>:

I have very serious doubts that any content on wikipedia would be considered pornographic by a german court, since it is always in encyclopedic context and thus by the german definition of pornography not pornographic, since the aim is not the arousal of the reader, but his education. The project in trouble here is not Wikipedia, but Commons, since there context is missing. Bye, Philipp _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Reply

Mathias Schindler

10:16 p.m.

On 10/22/07, effe iets anders <effeietsanders(a)gmail.com> wrote:

You can also view the images on wikipedia without any context by clicking on the image.

this is something you can do with your educational book on sexuality. you take your left and right hand and blank out the text part. Mathias

Reply

Mathias Damour

11:02 p.m.

Mathias Schindler a écrit :

On 10/22/07, effe iets anders <effeietsanders(a)gmail.com> wrote:

You can also view the images on wikipedia without any context by clicking on the image.

this is something you can do with your educational book on sexuality. you take your left and right hand and blank out the text part. Mathias

Ha-ha-ha ! I'm Sorry Effeietsanders, but that made me laugh, that's a good response I guess ! (another) Mathias

Reply

geni

26 Oct 26 Oct

8:47 p.m.

On 22/10/2007, Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

On 10/22/07, Mathias Schindler <mathias.schindler(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Youporn had the specific problem of providing hardcore pornography available to people without age verification. This is a problem we are actually not faced with

Of course not. The risk here is of a slippery slope. If this goes through, ThePirateBay.org is next - and then _every_ website will be a potential target under German law, whether it targets a German speaking audience or not. There's a potential for things to get really ugly for German Internet users.

Not really. If you live outside the US your internet will if not already being censored will be over the next decade. -- geni

Reply

Thomas Dalton

27 Oct 27 Oct

3:18 p.m.

Not really. If you live outside the US your internet will if not already being censored will be over the next decade.

{{fact}} Are you suggesting the US is the only country in the world that doesn't and won't censor the internet? I very much doubt you have a reliable source for that...

Reply

geni

3:51 p.m.

On 27/10/2007, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Not really. If you live outside the US your internet will if not already being censored will be over the next decade.

{{fact}} Are you suggesting the US is the only country in the world that doesn't and won't censor the internet? I very much doubt you have a reliable source for that...

Due to the US constitution it is rather hard to do. By comparison EU countries often have a selection of laws such as anti holocaust denial laws that could be used as a basis for internet censorship. I admit that I don't know much about the situation in japan. -- geni

Reply

Thomas Dalton

3:59 p.m.

Due to the US constitution it is rather hard to do. By comparison EU countries often have a selection of laws such as anti holocaust denial laws that could be used as a basis for internet censorship. I admit that I don't know much about the situation in japan.

The US constitution can be and has been amended. I know Germany has anti-Nazi laws, and Austria might as well, but they certainly aren't universal in the EU. The only "censorship" I can see happening in the UK is regarding child pornography and things than fall under various terrorism umbrellas. I expect the US has similar laws. I should also point out that the world does not consist of the US, EU and Japan...

Reply

geni

4:41 p.m.

On 27/10/2007, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Due to the US constitution it is rather hard to do. By comparison EU countries often have a selection of laws such as anti holocaust denial laws that could be used as a basis for internet censorship. I admit that I don't know much about the situation in japan.

The US constitution can be and has been amended. I know Germany has anti-Nazi laws, and Austria might as well, but they certainly aren't universal in the EU.

Also appear in France and a fair chunk of the other occupied countries. Also blasphemy laws and the like. Spain also has some laws about what you can say about the king.

The only "censorship" I can see happening in the UK is regarding child pornography and things than fall under various terrorism umbrellas. I expect the US has similar laws.

Terrorism ones not so much. Technically US laws on drawn child pornography are currently stricter than UK equiv but UK laws are changing (I think they are currently trying to work out how not to ban putti) and I'm not sure how well US law would hold up in the courts

I should also point out that the world does not consist of the US, EU and Japan...

Islamic countries show a clear tend towards censorship. I think we all know about china and the youtube issues with Brazil. India took some actions around the time of those train bombings. Former soviet block doesn't exactly have a culture of authority respecting freedom of communication. Same is true for much of Africa. -- geni

Reply

Nikola Smolenski

6:59 p.m.

On Friday 26 October 2007 20:47, geni wrote:

On 22/10/2007, Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

Of course not. The risk here is of a slippery slope. If this goes through, ThePirateBay.org is next - and then _every_ website will be a potential target under German law, whether it targets a German speaking audience or not. There's a potential for things to get really ugly for German Internet users.

Not really. If you live outside the US your internet will if not already being censored will be over the next decade.

I'm not afraid. Here the government is so incompetent it wouldn't know how to censor the Internet even when it finds out what it is.

Reply

Ray Saintonge

8:35 p.m.

geni wrote:

On 27/10/2007, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Not really. If you live outside the US your internet will if not already being censored will be over the next decade.

{{fact}} Are you suggesting the US is the only country in the world that doesn't and won't censor the internet? I very much doubt you have a reliable source for that...

Due to the US constitution it is rather hard to do. By comparison EU countries often have a selection of laws such as anti holocaust denial laws that could be used as a basis for internet censorship. I admit that I don't know much about the situation in japan.

Some US administrations have been known to act in ways that are forbidden by the Constitution. This is theoretically illegal, but by the time the illegality has been proven the real damage will have been achieved. Ec

Reply

Ray Saintonge

9:12 p.m.

Nikola Smolenski wrote:

On Friday 26 October 2007 20:47, geni wrote:

On 22/10/2007, Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

Of course not. The risk here is of a slippery slope. If this goes through, ThePirateBay.org is next - and then _every_ website will be a potential target under German law, whether it targets a German speaking audience or not. There's a potential for things to get really ugly for German Internet users.

Not really. If you live outside the US your internet will if not already being censored will be over the next decade.

I'm not afraid. Here the government is so incompetent it wouldn't know how to censor the Internet even when it finds out what it is.

No government is exempt from that. Technological competence is not part of a politician's job description. It's also a problem for many other professions. Politicians react most quickly to fear, and to perceived problems that arise from fear. The problems arising from pornsters and con-artists are easily put in the faces of politicians, and inspire them to quick fixes that have unforeseen restrictive effects on the majority of people, who would never dream of engaging in such behaviour. Ec

Reply

GerardM

28 Oct 28 Oct

8:46 a.m.

Hoi, I do not have a clue how you come to say this. Please explain. Thanks, GerardM On 10/26/07, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 22/10/2007, Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:

On 10/22/07, Mathias Schindler <mathias.schindler(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Youporn had the specific problem of providing hardcore pornography available to people without age verification. This is a problem we are actually not faced with

Of course not. The risk here is of a slippery slope. If this goes through, ThePirateBay.org is next - and then _every_ website will be a potential target under German law, whether it targets a German speaking audience or not. There's a potential for things to get really ugly for German Internet users.

Not really. If you live outside the US your internet will if not already being censored will be over the next decade. -- geni _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Reply

Robert Rohde

9:39 a.m.

Since somehow foundation-l started talking about porn and censorship, it may also be of interest that last week the US 6th Circuit Court of Appeals threw out the section 2257 record keeping laws as an unconstitutional infringment of free speech. For those who are unfamiliar, the section 2257 laws (also known as the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act) are the ones that require photographers and publishers to keep and make available records establishing the age of all performers appearing in photos and videos of a explicitly sexual nature. The constitutional justification for such laws, as advanced by the government, was to hinder child pornography. Corcern over 2257 has been a perenial issue on enwiki, even though the requirements appear to exempt non-commercial publishers unless they are also the photographer. The Court found that the law was unconstitutionally overbroad because it took in a wide range of legal activities and made no exceptions for the private, non-commerical conduct of consenting adults even when there was neglible likelihood being confused with child pornography. Court opinion: http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0430p-06.pdf -Robert Rohde

Reply

6031

days inactive

6037

days old

wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

21 comments

15 participants

tags (0)

participants (15)

effe iets anders
Erik Moeller
Gabe Johnson
geni
GerardM
Mathias Damour
Mathias Schindler
Michael Bimmler
Nikola Smolenski
P. Birken
Ray Saintonge
Robert Rohde
Sebastian Moleski
Thomas Dalton
Waerth