Donnerstag, 19. Mai 2016

PetitionGoogleNoCensorshipENcomplete_201605

     


#NoOpinionSuppression #NoCernsoreship #NoRightsViolation #NoLawBending #HumanRights #FreeSpeech #FreeThought
#FreeOpinion #FreeExpression
@Google
Please consider your slogan
"Don't be evil"
as a real promise!

But not only
as pretended ethical value in order to deceive the world public opinion!

@FlorianHensel @GermanJudiciary
Please renounce on mechanisms
which might be habits within injustice systems
but are not compatible to principles of rule of law.

           


Please sign my petition:


Recipients of the Petition
@Google
@LarryPage
@EricSchmidt
@SundarPichai
@FlorianHenschel
@GermanJudiciary
The petition addresses:
to Eric Schmidt, Executive Chairman Google Inc.
to Larry Page, CEO Alphabet Inc.
to Sunday Pichai, CEO Google Inc
to Florian Hensel, Attorney in Munich
to Judiciary authorities in Germany


Introduction of the originator
My name is Adi B Treiner, prefer however Abe Treiner to be called and am 58 years old.
I have published Web pages for the documentation of facts which I am not able to bring into line with my thoughts about constitutional and ethical / moralistic principles. Due to my perception of a responsibility regarding the burdened German history, I feel myself committed to document at an early stage the possibly undesirable developments in order to prevent a non-excluded calamitous repeating of history.
My aim regarding the responsibilities to our history is geared on reflecting my everyday acting and reflecting my daily existence relating to the context of our history but not as in Germany prevalent practiced only as an alibi for sporadic recurring common day of remembrance with a zero at the end.


Claim of the petition
  • The petition requests for the full compliance of human rights in the view of Article 19 UDHR, Article 10 of the ECHR and Article 5 of the German Basic Law.
  • The petition requests for the omission of any measures, such as deletion, blocking or other measures to prevent access to published posts, which may not be reconciled to the compatibility with the human right of freedom of expression.
  • Such measures contradict to the democratic self-conception and the principles of rule of law and leaves an impression of ignoring historical lessons or to endeavor to disable the liberal order.
  • The petition requests for the omission of any opportunistic reasoning, such as the alleged protection of personal rights, for enabling the unlawful restriction of the fundamental right of freedom of expression.
  • A limitation regarding to the personal honor is articulated only in the German Basic Law. This restriction stating clearly that this restriction only for personal defamation should be applied and therefore with no circumstances for functionaries within enterprises, institutions, organizations, associations, clubs, offices, authorities, parties or other groupings which are inherently exposed to an increased public perception interest.
  • Such kind of allegedly limitations lacking any basis until right then, if underlying grievances will be addressed through an opinion.
  • Different views regarding an applicability of limitations of basic human rights has to be accepted by decisions of the European Court of Human Rights and not by measures of self-administered justice, as it will undoubtedly embody by deletion, blocking or other access elimination.


Petition letter
Petition letter to:
Eric Schmidt, Executive Chairman Google Inc.
Larry Page, CEO Alphabet Inc.
Sunday Pichai, CEO Google Inc
Florian Hensel, Attorney in Munich
Judicial authorities of Germany

#NoOpinionSuppression #NoCernsoreship #NoRightsViolation #NoLawBending #HumanRights #FreeSpeech #FreeThought
#FreeOpinion #FreeExpression

We, the undersigned requests for the full compliance of human rights in the view of Article 19 UDHR, Article 10 of the ECHR and Article 5 of the German Basic Law.
The undersigned requesting also for the omission of any measures, such as deletion, blocking or other measures to prevent access to published posts, which may not be reconciled to the compatibility with the human right of freedom of expression.
Such measures contradict to the democratic self-conception and the principles of rule of law and leaves an impression of ignoring historical lessons or to endeavor to disable the liberal order.
Further requesting the undersigned the omission of any opportunistic reasoning, such as the alleged protection of personal rights, for enabling the unlawful restriction of the fundamental right of freedom of expression.
A limitation regarding to the personal honor is articulated only in the German Basic Law. This restriction stating clearly that this restriction only for personal defamation should be applied and therefore with no circumstances for functionaries within enterprises, institutions, organizations, associations, clubs, offices, authorities, parties or other groupings which are inherently exposed to an increased public perception interest.
Such kind of allegedly limitations lacking any basis until right then, if underlying grievances will be addressed through opinion.
Even more the undersigned requesting that different views regarding an applicability of limitations of basic human rights has to be accepted by decisions of the European Court of Human Rights and not by measures of self-administered justice, as it will undoubtedly embody by deletion, blocking or other access elimination.
With kind regards
The signers


Justification of the claim
  • None of the underlying fundamental rights articulates also even rudimentary a justification of the restriction of fundamental human right of freedom of expression relating to the practices of German judicial authorities.
  • The fundamental human right of freedom of expression was proclaimed precisely due to the catastrophic occurrences of the 20th century, where the violations of human rights were mainly caused by functionaries within enterprises, institutions, organizations, associations, clubs, offices, authorities, parties and other groups.
  • Reversing simply this causal link in retrospect, is undoubtedly a contempt of the underlying intentions from those who participated once in the drafting of the universal rights specifications.
  • A such endeavor can be associated with only those legal machinations which systematically undermined that perpetrators could be held accountable by subtle interpretations and fanciful derivation.
  • There is no doubt that the fundamental human right of freedom of expression derives its essential, unrestricted and all-encompassing claim from the facts that it was perceived during the era of injustice only by individuals, while all other institutions had failed to take responsibility toward the perception of their controlling function.
  • Within of the global information culture of today's world the role of bloggers are undoubtedly covering those critical controlling function, which was covered in the traditional information society by press media and which seems to be more and more neglected by those.
  • Thus is no doubt that the fundamental law regulations relating to the freedom of the press must be applied fully on publications of bloggers. A related impairment can therefore only be considered as attack against the democratic society and the liberal order.
  • Mechanisms of justice for themselves, such as deletions, blocking or other access preventing with the intention to prevent publishing of publications must be identified and de-legitimized as those analogue attitudes of the injustice system, which caused once that perpetrators pushed people in living body in incinerators or into pits by shots in the neck, just because they had tried to defy the expectations of their tormentors. People who still considers such behavior patterns as adequate measures to enforce their own will, have certainly not learned any lessons from the burdened German history and underpin the profound fear by such behavior of an almost inevitable disastrous repeating of history.
  • The term "Blogger" has established itself in society as a synonym for critical reporting. If this claim is not desired for Google's blogger platform and it is only provided as trivial content publishing platform, so this should be clearly communicated by Google in order to enable an assessment of expediency of the platform for readers and authors.


Facts and background
The author has decided to realize a public documentation about affairs where he is not able to bring those matters into line with his conviction about constitutional and ethical / moralistic principles.
Since publishing his documentation, the author is showered by judicial authorities and lawyers with injunctions which following without doubt an intention to compel the author through intimidation to abandonment and renunciation of legitimate rights. An application of such drastic mechanisms against citizens who rely only on the fundamental right of freedom of expression, are throwing a revealing light on our judicial system and its understanding of the rule of law. Typically, we expect from totalitarian forms of Government such attempts of citizens harassing in order to prevent the claim of freedom of expression. Contrary to all other constitutional oriented Nations, the German judicial system gives however an impression that such mechanisms would be appropriate methods against individuals, in order to urge them on waiver of claiming fundamental rights by intimidation. This does not correspond to the ideas of the author regarding rule of law.
After releasing his documentation, were parts of it blocked with the false accusations of alleged copyright infringement. As well the availability of parts of his documentary was stopped through page deletions. A further attempt with a false accusation that the author would distribute emails with malicious content (virus) was made with the intention to bring the author in closed psychiatric facilities. Since publication of his documentation, the author is exposed to an enormous amount of mails with malicious content (viruses and Trojans) and attack from hackers against his systems.
By judicial authorities in this country apparently disregard the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. In the case of B. v. Germany (Application No. 5709/09) the Court denied any justification to the German practice to suppress the freedom of expression by interim disposal. In the case of H. v. Germany (Application No. 28274/08) the Court confirmed the admissibility of the disclosure of abuses without any limitation.
From German history, as well as from historical consideration of other totalitarian systems we should have learned that elimination of Eyewitness accounts is coming nearly equal to a second ordeal of the victims. Such intentions degrade victims after their suffered tragedy, again on the level of an animal existence, which has a comparable public interest as a crushed insect somewhere in the world. Such an attitude of mind is certainly not that claim of a perception of responsibility, which is conveyed to us by historians, ethicists, theologians, philosophers, humanists and other reflective personalities of public life.
References to blocked sites






de_TheIssueSAIN
en_TheIssueSAIN
Germans-alive

Evildoers

Employees

Managers

Andrea-Prinz
Kai-Schmidt
Marcus-Krol
Wolfram-Schorr
Florian-Hensel
SAINLatestMail_20160406
SAINLatestMail_20160408
SAINLatestMail_20160410
The above thumbnails of the author's blogs shows lists of blocked publications and corresponds to the Web addresses which are referenced with the URL0 tag. Through workarounds, the author could bypass the blockages.
The posts can be checked by the alternative Web addresses referenced through URL1 respectively URL2, for cases that another blocking has been activated. It should be transparent for everyone that those publications neither contains slurs nor invective but only a serious presentation of actual occurrences.


Message to readers
Please sign my petition that the disregard of freedom of expression and freedom of information as well as the perception of responsibility will no longer be abused by judicial authorities through advanced reasons and as a farce of a commitment to democracy, the rule of law and the liberal democratic basic order will be served. The disregard of these principles leads at some point inevitably to an irreversible sinister development – which we should have learned from our history and consequently have drawn conclusions from it. No democracy can survive without unrestricted freedom of expression and freedom of information. Only with freedom of expression and freedom of information can be established a culture of error management in order to be able to detect such sinister developments at an early stage to prevent such developments.

Please support my petition. Many thanks for your help.


Revelations
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
ARTICLE 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR)
ARTICLE 10 / Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany
ARTICLE 5 / Freedom of expression, arts and sciences
(1) Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing and pictures, and to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts and films shall be guaranteed. There shall be no censorship.
(2) These rights shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons, and in the right to personal honour.
(3) Arts and sciences, research and teaching shall be free. The freedom of teaching shall not release any person from allegiance to the constitution.


References


Further links

Eingestellt von um
Labels: ,