How could you possibly think this to be censorship?

Is the Internet now forgetting everything?

That Germany has a problem with this internet thing is not news. After all, the Queen of Europe called it terra incognita and this, when the internet was 15 years old.

What's really of concern is that German lawyers keep having problems handling it which might be excusable for above reasons, but then stumbling over free speech, i.e. Article 5 of Germany's basic law, and then praising a higher court's decision that demands the amendment, read deletion, of certain facts about a person just because it happened years ago. That's bold, that's fucking bold.

German attorney Karsten Gulden, he btw specializes in media rights, has this post on his blog:

The Higher Regional Court of Hamburg ruled in a significant judgment that the right to be forgotten, not only the search engines, but also the site operators takes responsibility. Modification is not excluded.

The first sentence in his post is a real knockout for anyone who believes in free speech:

"The Hamburg judges have done something that had to be done: the creation of a balance between freedom of information and the protection of privacy of individuals."

Oops, my good man, when it starts this way you are already in purgatory. Let's listen in:

"In the recent ruling, it was found that the site operator liable for contributions that infringes the right to privacy of the person concerned after expiry of the general interest in information. The operator of the site must then modify the contents of its side so that the contribution by entering the name of the person concerned no longer shows up in Internet search engines, OLG Hamburg Az .: 7 U 29/12, judgment of 07.07.2015."

So according to this German attorney AND media specialist (!) general interest in information has a limited shelf life. Ok, this guy is getting some second thoughts that this might perhaps, who knows, smack of censorship. So he double-checked the verdict (Google translate is not good here) and felt it absolutely convincing. No censorship!

Granted, it is not clear how the website operators are to achieve this, he muses, but this will be dealt with in the appeal and German attorney Karsten Gulden is already steps ahead: it's simples, just change the name of concerned person to initials. Bingo. 

Sure, cautions this attorney,

"The fact is that the judgment represents a significant encroachment on the freedom of reporting."

No shit. 

"That's right. BUT: no less worthy of protection are the interests of those who have been reported on in the past that their public reputation is not affected in eternity. Keywords: right to be forgotten."

And now give the German attorney the opportunity to show his altruistic side when he raises his warning finger:

"Anyone who has come into the vortex of the press has little chance of rehabilitation."

Here the verdict truly shines according to attorney Karsten Gulden in that "the culprit" (he is addressing the website publisher!) can redeem himself by making sure that the post about the concerned person is thus amended that any personal derogation is deleted.

In case you were deluded into thinking about censorship here, NEIN, NEIN, NEIN! Here is why:

"From a quasi-censorship so there is no question, as the contributions remain searchable and only in extreme individual cases, is it likely to lead to the conclusion that the interests of the press must be subordinate. It is good for those affected to know that now their interest in rehabilitation has been addressed and recognized by a court in Germany."

So prior to this verdict these individual persons had no personal interest in rehabilitation? Is that what you are saying, Karsten? Well how can a deletion of some information all of a sudden change their intention? 

Let's put this into broader and rather current context: Greece. It gets all the bad rap you could imagine (the German press sees to that, no worries), but let us assume in a total delirious state of mind that Greece will be on the way to become a shining star of the EU in a decade or so. It's 2022 and Greece seems to be picking up economically (yep, I am just enjoying my 5th whiskey neat), but there are still these negative press and blogs coverings from back then on the internet. Would Karsten Gulden suggest to delete all these or perhaps change those articles from 'Greece in Europe' to 'G. in E.' in order to give Greece, no make that G., a better chance? That's what you would call the Endlösung a clean internet, courtesy Germany.

In all fairness it has to be said, he is by no means alone in this assessment. This is a common trait by many German attorneys who still have a love-hate relationship with the intertubes and can not really get a handle on free speech. They would love to have it regulated by the government.