or other objectionable materials were completely or partly excluded by the German
version of the search engine Google (google.de). 20
While cases of blocking might occur infrequently, takedown requests, many of
which receive a positive response, occur far more often. For example, as a result of the
prohibition of Holocaust denial and public incitement of hatred against a minority
in Germany, complaints have been filed against companies that host such content.
The most prominent example is YouTube. In August 2007, German politicians and
the Central Council of Jews in Germany complained about the extremist content that
was being hosted on YouTube. 21 A YouTube spokesman promptly promised to improve the system of takedowns to comply with the demands of German law. 22
A related issue is the political and judicial debate over whether linking to presumably
illicit content is illegal. Several instances of this issue have been recorded. For example,
in 2004 the political activist Alvar Freude was accused of linking to right-wing extremist Web sites and was brought to court. Freude had documented the censorship by the
Du ¨sseldorf district government mentioned previously and had linked to blocked Web
sites. The district court found him guilty. However, Stuttgart Regional Court overturned that decision in 2006 and acquitted Freude. 23
In another case involving prohibited online material, the Federal Court of Justice
decided in 2000 that the Australian owner of an Australian Web site denying the Holocaust could be held liable in Germany. 24
Another reason provided for Internet blocking is the protection of minors. The legal
details are regulated in the Jugendschutzgesetz ( JuSchG, Youth Protection Act) 25 and the
Jugendmedienschutz-Staatsvertrag ( JMStV, Youth Media Protection Treaty). 26 The JuSchG
regulates Tra ¨germedien (physical media) like books and videos. The JMStV regulates
broadcasts and Telemedien (transmitted media) like the Internet.
More generally, Section 184(1) of the German Criminal Code states, ‘‘Whoever, in
relation to pornographic writings . . . offers, gives or makes them accessible to a person
under eighteen years of age . . . shall be punished with imprisonment for not more
than one year or a fine.’’ 27 In addition, the dissemination of pornographic performances through electronic media is prohibited if the provider does not ensure by technical or other means that the performance is not accessible to persons under 18 years
of age (Section 184d of the German Criminal Code). These laws are taken as a requirement for Web sites with adult content to implement a strict age verification system.
For example, Flickr has complied with this perceived requirement by prohibiting
German users from accessing photos marked ‘‘restricted.’’ 28
Since the amendment of the JuSchG and JMStV in 2003, the BPjM has maintained
a blacklist of Web sites. In order to avoid widespread publicity, this blacklist is not
published. One may inquire as to whether an item is on the blacklist by e-mailing
liste@bundespruefstelle.de. 29 At the time of writing, the BPjM Web site stated that the
number of censored Web sites was 1,948. 30
310
Germany
version of the search engine Google (google.de). 20
While cases of blocking might occur infrequently, takedown requests, many of
which receive a positive response, occur far more often. For example, as a result of the
prohibition of Holocaust denial and public incitement of hatred against a minority
in Germany, complaints have been filed against companies that host such content.
The most prominent example is YouTube. In August 2007, German politicians and
the Central Council of Jews in Germany complained about the extremist content that
was being hosted on YouTube. 21 A YouTube spokesman promptly promised to improve the system of takedowns to comply with the demands of German law. 22
A related issue is the political and judicial debate over whether linking to presumably
illicit content is illegal. Several instances of this issue have been recorded. For example,
in 2004 the political activist Alvar Freude was accused of linking to right-wing extremist Web sites and was brought to court. Freude had documented the censorship by the
Du ¨sseldorf district government mentioned previously and had linked to blocked Web
sites. The district court found him guilty. However, Stuttgart Regional Court overturned that decision in 2006 and acquitted Freude. 23
In another case involving prohibited online material, the Federal Court of Justice
decided in 2000 that the Australian owner of an Australian Web site denying the Holocaust could be held liable in Germany. 24
Another reason provided for Internet blocking is the protection of minors. The legal
details are regulated in the Jugendschutzgesetz ( JuSchG, Youth Protection Act) 25 and the
Jugendmedienschutz-Staatsvertrag ( JMStV, Youth Media Protection Treaty). 26 The JuSchG
regulates Tra ¨germedien (physical media) like books and videos. The JMStV regulates
broadcasts and Telemedien (transmitted media) like the Internet.
More generally, Section 184(1) of the German Criminal Code states, ‘‘Whoever, in
relation to pornographic writings . . . offers, gives or makes them accessible to a person
under eighteen years of age . . . shall be punished with imprisonment for not more
than one year or a fine.’’ 27 In addition, the dissemination of pornographic performances through electronic media is prohibited if the provider does not ensure by technical or other means that the performance is not accessible to persons under 18 years
of age (Section 184d of the German Criminal Code). These laws are taken as a requirement for Web sites with adult content to implement a strict age verification system.
For example, Flickr has complied with this perceived requirement by prohibiting
German users from accessing photos marked ‘‘restricted.’’ 28
Since the amendment of the JuSchG and JMStV in 2003, the BPjM has maintained
a blacklist of Web sites. In order to avoid widespread publicity, this blacklist is not
published. One may inquire as to whether an item is on the blacklist by e-mailing
liste@bundespruefstelle.de. 29 At the time of writing, the BPjM Web site stated that the
number of censored Web sites was 1,948. 30
310
Germany