一个凶手是否应该有被遗忘的权利?

在2008年,两名被定罪的的杀人犯按照德国法律要求维基百科和其他网络媒体从互联网上删除他们的名字及记录。在本例中,被人遗忘的权利是否比公众的知情权更重要?

案例详情

1993年,谋杀德国演员沃尔特·塞德迈尔(Walter Sedlmayr)的凶手:沃尔夫冈·维尔(Wolfgang Werle)和曼弗雷德·劳伯(Manfred Lauber)分别被判处14年和15年徒刑。他们在2007年和2008年被释放后,控告多家媒体公司(其中包括德国的《明镜》和英语的维基百科)在网上文章中形容他们是杀人凶手并提及他们的名字。英语维基百科拒绝删除这两个人的名字,理由是这将侵犯维基百科的媒体自由。维基百科媒体公司总部设在美国, 因此法律上被美国宪法第一修正案保护,德国法律不适用。

德国汉堡的法院判决,互联网上的文章侵犯了维尔和劳伯的私隐权, 下令删除他们的名字。1973年德国的一个判例中表明,完成刑期后的人有权利要求以前的定罪纪录不再被提及。基于1973年的先例, 德语版维基百科的编辑从德语维基百科中删除了维尔和劳伯的名字。 但是在2009年,德国宪法法院推翻了1973年的决定,理由是此举限制了新闻自由。维尔和劳伯将不得不接受他们的私隐权将受到一定程度的侵害。这个裁定的理由之一是删除所有有关档案和信息将对维基百科构成过高的财政负担。判决后,德语版维基百科页面恢复了原来的内容和两人的名字。

作者意见

处理沃尔夫冈·维尔和曼弗雷德·劳伯的案件时需要平衡公众的知情权,媒体报道和个人被遗忘的权利。虽然有很好的理由来支持个人被遗忘的权利,但根据美国宪法第一修正案和德国宪法法院的裁决,自由报告事实的权利也应该受到保护。 在某些情况下,公众应该有知情权:例如社区的家庭应该有权知道一个被定罪的戀童癖者在他们的的社区生活。在这个案例中, 只有当删除两个人的名字是可行的时候, 这样做才是正确的决定。

本案例凸显了一个问题:在全球网络相连的世界中,我们能否阻止网民在线上发布内容及资料? 虽然法律在某些情况下可以保护姓名不被披露,但鉴于互联网难以控制,这往往不能得以很好的执行。

例如,最近Twitter上警察对“冒犯性言论”采取的行动(虽然这行动可能是合理的),但因为有太多人参与, 许许多多同样有冒犯性的言论并没有受到起诉。另外一个难题是不可能防止罪犯名字在其他国家被披露出来,如果是这样,那么在国内禁止就失去了意义。更有意思的问题是当它涉及到隐私的保护时,国家的法律仍然适用吗?

 

- Judith Bruhn

继续阅读:


评论 (0)

读者须知:自动翻译由Google翻译提供,虽然可以反映作者大意,但不一定能提供精准的译意。

  1. 您的评论正在等待审核。

    This case reminded me of the case of an Indian-origin doctor in UK. He was accused of molestation (sexual assault) by a female patient. In the first instance he was found guilty by the medical council but the high court cleared him of all the charges. As expected, the media (both in UK and India) carried the reports of he being found guilty of sexual misconduct. But when the high court cleared him, there was no interest in his case. He then himself contacted newspapers and websites asking them to carry a report on the high court judgment or remove the earlier content. Fortunately for him he was happy with the responses he got.

  2. 您的评论正在等待审核。

    It is highly controversial issue. In my humble opinion, it shouldn’t be permit to erase any names which belongs to the murderers in the internet or any other sources. I think that these names gives information about these people so anyone would take necessary steps when it comes to closing these people. Disclosing these names would be seen as a security precautions.

  3. 您的评论正在等待审核。

    Thank you Alexander, I agree with you that everyone deserves a second chance in life, including not being publicly named after he served his sentence.
    But do you think this is still enforceable in this interconnected world in which the internet allows information from all continents to be exchanged? Should foreign companies bow to German law?

    • 您的评论正在等待审核。

      Sorry. Please forgive me replying too late.
      I agree with you points definitely. The answer to the former question is the fluidity of the information shouldn’t be controlled. As to latter, of course not.
      However, I think this problem may bigger than that circumstance. We should consider the basic rights to live at first. Machine and law both are tools to ensure a normal society, before that, the protection of right of a single man must be concerned. Otherwise, even though regulations are in their way, make no sense.

  4. 您的评论正在等待审核。

    Certainly, the past doesn’t mean now, especially to persons who had mistake. According to this case, the German court gave a reasonable judgement to murderer. After the decision, we should realize that he ought to have rights to live in the society normally as other people. Therefore, surely, he has fame and privacy. There is no doubt law should protect him in these areas.

以任何语言评论

精选内容

向左划动浏览所有精选内容


“言论自由大讨论”是牛津大学圣安东尼学院达伦多夫自由研究计划下属的学术项目。

牛津大学