Agent Lehmann Censorship

CK - Washington.   German law protects the privacy of not so famous persons by limiting the publication of names and pictures in the media. The famous enjoy protection in intimate matters. As a result, the press covers many events involving the not-so-famous by using initials instead of full names. For similar reasons, many media, including blogs, redact names of parties, lawyers, witnesses and judges out of opinions published by courts despite the fact that the proceedings are public and opinons are released Im Namen des Volkes, i.e. in the name of the people. A recent step into the direction of censorship involves publisher Verlag 8. Mai GmbH, its newspaper Junge Welt and a counter-terrorism agent known variously as Gerhard L. and href="http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/24/24171/1.html" target="_new">Lehmann. The latter has become famous because of parliamentary investigations, TV appearances, a book and media reports. On December 7, 2006, the Berlin district court held hearings on two matters, docket numbers 27.0.1139/06 and 27.0.722/06. They concerned the issue whether or not the paper had incorrectly reported that Gerhard L. had been identified, with a certainty of 90 percent, as secret agent Sam who reportedly interviewed German-Lebanse dual citizen Khaled el Masri at a secret prison, Salt Pit, in Afghanistan. Gerhard L., identified in reports as a First Criminal Chief Commissioner, 1. KHK, at the Federal Criminal Agency, Bundeskriminalamt, with the last name of Lehmann, is said to have asked the court and the press to report his assertion that he is not Sam. According to Junge Welt, the court ordered the paper not to report on the hearing, while agreeing that the paper had accurately published an earlier report on the identification issue. Junge Welt and other media consider the court's attempt of restricting reports on court hearings a massive attack on the press. ^KThe decision raises interesting issues. The agent has achieved fame. Generally, and under the German rules governing the media and the famous, reporting on public matters he is involved in should remain uncensored. An argument might be made that a law-level official, whose ministerial position pushes him into the limelight, retains the expectations of privacy of a not-famous person. Gerhard L.'s interaction with the media activities may have diminished, however, that expectation, so that the ruling would appear inappropriate. To the extent there is truth to published allegations that the court issued its order to protect the court from criticizm, the decision seems outrageously wrong. German American Law Journal :: Washington USA