[pp.int.general] Some in spanish of Jörg Tauss?
pirat at sparre.dk
Mon Jun 14 20:15:53 CEST 2010
> There are news after the PPDE press realease:
> Very complicated situation.
I have been following this, because I read German fluently, and I am
really angry about how biased some media is in their reporting of this case.
In the article above it is stated that the court decided he possessed
child pornography for his own personal reasons (implying that he is a
pedophile), but in the official press release from the court
you can directly read that the court did not find that his possession
was because of sexual interest.
And if everybody is equal before the law, why was Jörg Tauss convicted,
while Ursula von der Leyen (minister in the German government) was not
convicted, although she did not only posses child porn, but also
This case looks very political to me. Tauss was against blocking child
porn on the net, while von der Leyen was for blocking it.
This case really started when the German government started spreading
lies about child pron on the net to get their new censorship law in
place. Tauss refused to believe the lies of the government, and started
his own investigation under his parlamentary immunity.
When Tauss started getting loud in parliament about the government lies
he became a problem for the government and the many parlamentarians who
wanted censorship, and he was investigated. They found out that he had
been communicating with a suspected child porn distributor, and he was
raided. (He already admitted this, and his possession of child porn, and
said it was part of his independent investigation.)
Then the German parliament voted to retroactively remove his
parlamentary immunity, and the court case against him could start.
Almost all of the other parlamentarians from his own party voted for
retroactively removing his parlamentary immunity, and this was probably
one of the main reasons he left the social democrats and became a member
of the pirate party.
The conviction (the first of it's kind in German law history since WW2)
basically says that parlamentary immunity does not matter if you are
investigating to find out if the official information from the
government is true or false.
P.S: This somehow reminds me of the reaction in Denmark when the child
porn block list was leaked on WikiLeaks. A law change was made under an
expedited procedure, and was in place about half a year after the leak.
This law change makes it a crime punishable with prison, if a journalist
(or anybody else) checks the leaked list to see if it is really child
porn that is being blocked.
More information about the pp.international.general