In the case at hand, Wolfgang Werlé, a man convicted of murder in Germany in 1990, has recently filed a cease and desist letter requesting the removal of his name from Wikipedia’s English language article regarding Walter Sedlmayr, his victim. The cease and desist letter deals with the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which protects free speech as well as a citizen’s right to know. According to Werlé’s attorney, German privacy law allows “the suppression of a criminal’s name in news accounts once he has paid his debt to society”(www.nytimes.com ). It is important, when dealing with this case, to recognize that this German privacy law is not afforded in the United States, which is where Wikipedia’s parent, Wikimedia, Inc., is located.

Werlé and his attorneys claim that Wikipedia’s continued use of his name not only violates his right to privacy but may also constitute defamation. Defamation is defined as “oral or written false statements that wrongfully harm a person’s reputation”(CyberLaw, 345). In order for defamation to be a legitimate claim for Werlé, his attorneys must show that certain required elements of proof are present. These elements of proof include: a false statement of fact, not opinion, about the plaintiff; publication of the statement without a privilege to do so; fault or negligence; and damages – actual or presumed. Unfortunately for Werlé, truth is an absolute and complete defense to defamation. While the inclusion of his name on Wikipedia’s site and revealing his status as a convicted murderer, despite his having served jail time for his crime, may be harmful to his reputation, the fact of the matter is that it is true. Werlé was in fact convicted of the murder of Walter Sedlmayr; therefore, the presence of his name in that article does not constitute defamation. In addition, while Werlé and his attorneys may consider this a violation of his privacy under German law, the First Amendment of the United States Constitution affords its citizens the right to know, which will overrule German law due to issues of jurisdiction.

The only real way for Werlé and his attorneys to be successful in claiming libel or defamation would be if Werlé did not actually commit the crime. It was mentioned in the Wikipedia article on Wolfgang Merlé that he claims his innocence and has “cited inconsistencies in the fingerprint evidence presented at the trial”(www.wikipedia.com ). If these inconsistencies did somehow prove Werlé’s innocence, then the defense to defamation of truth would not exist, and Wikipedia would most likely have to remove his name from the site.