|
A decade ago the Electronic Freedom Foundation had no objection when a man
was held responsible for what was said on a website he did control, own,
have a password for or even know enough about computers to have found it on
the web. Once again this man is under arrest and heading for trial, this
time in Germany instead of Canada. The same issue will be raised.
Canada has established a falsehood to be true for purposes of criminal
prosecution. Germany to preparing to do the same. That a person who is a
sometimes subject of a website is legally responsible for the website
without having any control of it nor a content contributor to it nor
exercising any editorial control over it.
It is analogous to a book entitled, "The Age of McCarthyism" which discusses
the events and the major players of the era and because Senator McCarthy is
related to the title of the book he is responsible for the book. Further is
assumes a person libeled by the author of the book could sue Senator
McCarthy for the libel. It is good for the senator he has departed this
world.
The specific case is a website name Zundelsite. Before they ever met Ingrid
Rimland started the website. When Ernst Zundel was on trial the prosecution
contend with no other evidence than the name and the general subject matter
that Zundel was responsible for the content of the website.
As it was in Canada and as it will be in Germany the case will hinge upon a
website owned and operated by an American which came into existence before
they met and only tangentially related to Zundel constitutes a violation of
the laws of Germany.
Unlike the case of eBay in France over the issue of auctions of Nazi
memorabilia at no time did Germany notify Ms Rimland of its inability to
prevent German citizens from choosing to read it. Nor at any time was she
notified the website was considered to be a violation of the laws of
Germany. Nor was Ernst Zundel notified of either assertion. Nor has Germany
asserted it is a crime for Germans to request the material on her website.
The content of the website is very politically incorrect and many people put
on a great act of outraged that such material is available anywhere. But it
is also true impartial people, those who do not practice being offended,
agree the entire issue is purely a political matter solely instigated by the holocaust industry
profiteers.
It is a common tactic to create case law on easy to win cases. Thus when
France charged eBay, eBay was able to adequately defend itself and did not
need outside assistance. Mr. Zundel is another matter entirely. While not
poverty stricken he is not wealthy. Due to two years in solitary confinement
in Canada (as a threat to its national security) he has had no income. It is
conceivable he can possibly mount an adequate defense. He will lose. And the
political and diplomatic fallout of a not guilty verdict makes it certain
there will be a state directed guilty verdict.
In Germany there will be legal precedent for charging anyone with any
website any place in the world for what Germany decides is a violation of
its laws. This is not good for the internet. In addition it will have
succeeded in eliminating the requirement for personal responsibility for the
content making a person culpable for what any third party associates with
him.
The separation of the responsible party, the website owner, and the
non-responsible party is going to be eliminated by this court decision in
Germany. And that is why the Electronic Freedom Foundation must intervene in
this case. Germany is a major player in the European Union and has a major
influence in its laws. The entire European Union can use this precedent
creating a major problem for free countries in the world.
And even for less free countries. China filters huge amounts of internet
content but has not tried to make criminals of foreigners who provides what
China considers undesirable content. Perhaps one can attribute this to
understanding the internet and prosecutors who actually understand the
internet.
That is the bottom line. It is a profound ignorance of the internet or the
willful disregard of the nature of the internet which makes this so
dangerous. It is an attempt to set a legal precedent for regulating the
internet that has no relationship to the nature of the internet. That
Germany will punish one person for the crimes of another is a problem for
the German legal system which it has had since 1933 but it is an internal
affair.
|