> Yes, it is legal.
It saddens me that this needed to be clarified, that anyone would wonder whether putting a page on the internet without going through the "proper channels" was legal. Not surprising, but sad.
It saddens me that this needed to be clarified, that anyone would wonder whether putting a page on the internet without going through the "proper channels" was legal. Not surprising, but sad.
I don't have a reference in English, but http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impressumspflicht (in German) is very clear about it.
Wie sich aus § 55 Abs. 1 RStV ergibt, trifft
einen Anbieter somit nur dann keine Impressumspflicht, und
er kann seine Webseite völlig anonym ins Internet stellen,
wenn sein Angebot ausschließlich persönlichen oder
familiären Zwecken dient.
The problem with this law is, that is says something about a page with some baby pictures ( so that grandma can see her grandchildren), and something about media corporations. However it simply does not address the case of a private blog, were the audience is not personally related to the author, but the author does also not try to make money with it.
A blog, a portfolio, bookmarks, dotfiles or even a simple memorial (if it's for someone outside of family) is enough.
I have not added one to anything I have ever put online nor do I intent to. I neither host in my country nor do I publish in my mother tongue. I think it is ridiculous to be forced to divulge information that allows people to knock on my door.
For example, what if a corporation set up the page? Oh, we can't let corporations have free speech, according to popular sentiment (which is packaged up as "campaign finance laws"). So, we had better make sure we know who says everything, to make sure it's not a corporation.
In a society that hates freedom, freedom dies. We live in that society.
I have never heard of a campaign finance law that would prevent a corporation from putting up a web page. Have you? If so, please post a link to the text of the law. I'd be fascinated to read it. Heck, even if it's just a proposed law, that'd be interesting, so you can just put up a link to the bill.
The infamous McCain-Feingold Act made it unlawful to, among other things, publicly criticize a politician within months of an election, unless you were on a list of exceptions that did not include ordinary corporations. It was the law for nearly a decade until recently being declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
It's a little ambiguous if a mere webpage would count because the rules for internet communications are even less clear than those for traditional media.
As far as I could tell, it only outlawed broadcast advertising, which is a very different thing.
I'm quite surprised that, as a brother/sister comment to this one pointed out, a law such as the one you described actually did (does?) exist.
Also, I think you don't understand free speech.
The reason democracies are universally big on free speech is that the citizenry must be able to freely discuss how to run their country.
You appear to be a free-speech fundamentalist. Which is an opinion you're entitled to hold. But personally, I strongly disagree that free speech should privilege those spending millions or billions manipulating the opinion of the voters, especially when that's an attempt to line their own pockets.
If any Fortune 500 CEO would like to stand on the streetcorner and explain his views on an issue, I believe no law should stop him. But I believe the current system is just a fancy form of corruption, and does significant harm to the goals that led to the adoption of the first amendment.
Why do you think we have over 11 million illegal aliens living here and over a million people who gained citizenship last year?
Clearly, they must think that freedom is alive and well in the United States my friend.
If I were running for president, my #1 campaign promise and the first thing I'd do upon election would be to shroud the Statue of Liberty, which is currently the greatest symbol of hypocrisy in the world. 99.999% of American citizens' ancestors came here from other countries, which is now regulatory hell, i.e., practically illegal.
> Clearly, they must think that freedom is alive and well in the United States my friend.
May be better than where they came from. But anyway, what anybody thinks is not evidence for what's true.
> the greatest symbol of hypocrisy in the world
Really? The single greatest signal in the whole world? You can't think of anything that better exemplifies hypocrisy?
Your basic point, which I agree with, would carry a lot more weight if you cut down on the rhetoric.
Oh, hang on, which jurisdictions does he fall under? And sdf.org? And the various Tor relays? And, dear reader, you?