Depublizieren is the process of removing websites from publicly accessible areas, which the online services (Telemedia) of the public broadcasters in Germany began in the summer of 2009 for their archive holdings and, since September 1, 2010, also for current reporting after a period of generally seven days. Websites that have been removed by the Interstate Broadcasting Agreement (RStV) do not have to be deleted but are no longer publicly accessible.
According to ARD, Germany's process for depublizieren public service websites is the most complex in the world."Niggemeier 2010-07-19" Although the BBC has also reduced its online services to justify its license fee funding,Marika Bent: Versöhnliche Töne: Vertreter von privaten und öffentlich-rechtlichen Sendern sowie von Verlagen diskutierten. In: Märkische Allgemeine, September 9, 2010, retrieved on September 25, 2010. the Public-Value-Test used in the UK - the model for the German three-step test - only applies to major projects. In contrast to the German broadcasters, the ORF refrains from a retrospective review of existing offerings. Estimates of the total volume of older public service Internet content that has been decommissioned are more than one million online documents.Stefan Krempl: Öffentlich-Rechtliche und Private üben „ein bisschen Frieden“. In: Heise online, September 6, 2010, retrieved on September 25, 2010.
The term "depublizieren" or "depublication"Nach Depublikation seiner Kolumne: Harald Martenstein verlässt Tagesspiegel • Medieninsider. In: Medieninsider. February 22, 2022, retrieved on February 23, 2022 (German).Christoph Bornschein, manager magazin: Vorwärts immer! Der zweite Skandal im Skandal um Peter Altmaiers Digitalbeirat. Retrieved on February 23, 2022. is also used when controversialSWR räumt Fehler ein und depubliziert Ausgabe der „Spätschicht“. Retrieved February 2, 2022. or erroneousKorrekturen und Richtigstellungen. Retrieved February 23, 2022. online content is removed from the publicly accessible area.Gereon Asmuth: Sender reagiert auf taz-Recherche: SWR zieht Lisa Fitz zurück. In: Die Tageszeitung: taz. December 19, 2021, ISSN 0931-9085 (taz.de [accessed February 2, 2022]).Was ist los an der Berliner Staatsoper? Retrieved February 2, 2022. It is also used for private media.Meedia Editorial office: Harald Martenstein verlässt den "Tagesspiegel" | MEEDIA. February 21, 2022, retrieved on February 21, 2022 (German).Nach Abschied vom „Tagesspiegel“ - Harald Martenstein und die Grenzen des Sagbaren. Retrieved February 21, 2022.Christian Meier: Harald Martenstein: Geschichte einer Löschung. In: DIE WELT. February 23, 2022 (welt.de [retrieved on February 25, 2022]).
Concept Depublizieren is a neologism from the word publication (publish, from Latin publicus, public) and the Latin prefix de- ("off", " gone", "down", "miss"). The term, which is not used on a legal basis, was hardly used before 2010. Earlier definitions of depublizieren as "unpublishing" referred to the removal of factually incorrect content from the Internet without comment instead of correctionWas ist… Lexikon: Depublizieren. In: drweb.de, June 20, 2004, retrieved on September 15, 2010: "Do you know the term 'depublish'? You could also say 'unpublish', but that doesn't sound very elegant. What is meant is that reports, news or articles that were obviously false, lies or fabrications are not supplemented by a correction, as one would do in a newspaper, they simply disappear, are deleted and erased from the web." or, as a technical term, to the withdrawal of a contribution visible on a website without its deletion from the repository.Federal Office of Administration: Erstellung eines Workflowkonzeptes (Published by the Federal Office for Information Technology, August 6, 2004, retrieved on September 15, 2010 (PDF; 590 kB), p. 38. Technically, the latter meaning corresponds to using the term in the discussion about depublishing public Internet content.
The formation of the term contains a paradoxical element, as the terms "publishing" or " publicizing" do not actually permit this form of formation of antonyms:Cf. depublizieren. In: Neusprech.org, September 12, 2010, retrieved on September 16, 2010. a statement made to the public by publication cannot be retracted by not continuing to disseminate it, but only by revocating it. Therefore, a person harmed by untrue media reports can regularly assert a claim for a right of reply or rectification (→ right to rectification).
However, such a corrective revocation is not meant when depublishing public service content. The use of the term by the employees and committees of public broadcasters responsible for the organization of depublizieren made the term a buzzword in the summer of 2010, which, due to its contradictory nature, tends to criticize the removal of websites (→ Reactions section). What is published on the internet cannot be taken back; this is conceptually "silly" and a "fight against windmills" (Johnny Haeusler).Maik Gizinski: Der Kampf der Netzaktivisten gegen das Depublizieren. In: Zapp (NDR Fernsehen), September 22, 2010 (Video, 7:11 minutes), retrieved on September 25, 2010. Depublizieren was named early on as a possible un-word of the year 2010.Enno Park: Freies Tagesschau-Archiv gegen das Depublizieren (Memento from September 16, 2010 in the Internet Archive). In: YuccaTreePost, September 14, 2010, retrieved on September 15, 2010.
Outside public broadcasting, depublizieren is also used more generally for:
Removing controversial, erroneous, or legally problematic online content. Taking down articles or posts from private media sites, blogs, or other platforms.
It is roughly equivalent to the English terms “unpublish,” “depublish,” “take offline,” or “remove from public access.”
Previous history
In 2003, the German Association of Private Broadcasters and Telemedia (VPRT) filed a complaint with the European Commission, describing the broadcast receiving license as illegal state aid under Article paragraph 1 of the Treaty of Rome (EGV) - now Article 107 paragraph 1 of the TFEU Treaty. This funding distorts competition and puts private companies at a disadvantage, especially since public broadcasters do not have a narrowly defined functional mandate for their activities, especially in the online sector. Although the federal states and the broadcasters themselves had never considered the financing of the fees as a state subsidy, the EU Commission followed the VPRT's interpretation and demanded that this aid be abolished or that the exemption criteria of Article
paragraph 2 of the Treaty of Rome (EGV) be fulfilled.Thomas Mike Peters: Was ist eigentlich der Drei-Stufen-Test?. In: Telemedicus, February 16, 2009, retrieved on September 15, 2010. An open conflict arose in the summer of 2007:
However, Article 5 of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany guarantees "freedom of the press and freedom of reporting through broadcasting and film", and although public service broadcasting is not explicitly mentioned there, this includes its reporting and press products. On September 11, 2007, the Federal Constitutional Court stated that the mandate of public service broadcasting also extends to new digital offerings and contains a "development guarantee" (already stated in earlier broadcasting rulings by the court). According to this, public service broadcasting is to ensure the diversity of offerings and the reliability of information on the internet - it is attributed a "genuine online mandate".BVerfG: Determination of broadcasting fees. BVerfG, judgment of the First Senate of September 11, 2007 - 1 BvR 2270/05, 1 BvR 809/06, 1 BvR 830/06 –, BVerfGE 119, 181; cf. BVerfG: 5th Broadcasting Decision / Baden-Württemberg. BVerfG, Decision of the First Senate of March 24, 1987 - 1 BvR 147, 478/86 –, BVerfGE 74, 297 and BVerfG: 8th broadcasting decision/cable fees: BVerfG, judgment of the First Senate of February 22, 1994, Ref.: 1 BvL 30/88, BVerfGE 90, 60. All in: Telemedicus.info, retrieved on September 15, 2010, and in BVerfGE. "The Supreme Court's ruling on fees was seen as a victory for public service broadcasting."
The State Aid Compromise of 2007 between the Federal Republic of Germany and the EU Commission stipulated that "the functional mandate of the public broadcasters will be sufficiently specified" by June 1, 2009, and in particular that its extension to online offerings will be defined. This compromise averted a case before the European Court of Justice, which could have "called into question the financing of broadcasting in the entire EU".
Legal basis
Objective On June 1, 2009, the 12th Amendment to the Interstate Broadcasting Treaty (12th RÄStV) came into force, with which the federal states wanted to fulfill their obligations from the State Aid Compromise and at the same time secure the constitutionally guaranteed independence of the public media.
The 12th Interstate Broadcasting Treaty (RÄStV) should fully transfer the traditional mission of the public broadcasters to the online sector, as the "density of households that are technically connected to the Internet and use Internet services"Begründung zum Zwölften Staatsvertrag zur Änderung rundfunkrechtlicher Staatsverträge. In: Institut für Urheber- und Medienrecht, retrieved on September 15, 2010. has increased considerably and the development guarantee confirmed by the Federal Constitutional Court requires this. To meet the requirements of the EU Commission, however, one aspect in particular must be taken into account:
Broadcasting concept However, the 12th RÄStV also included a change to the definition of broadcasting. Section 2, paragraph 1, of the new RStV now states:
According to the explanatory memorandum of the 12th Interstate Broadcasting Treaty, the new aspect is "the clarification that broadcasting is a linear information and communication service. The insertion of the criterion 'for simultaneous reception' distinguishes broadcasting services from on-demand services. Simultaneous reception is also to be understood as a transmission which is subject to short delays for technical reasons alone". The linearity criterion excludes, for example, the independent presentation of user-generated content and the form of an online community.The SR pointed out that such "possibilities of participation [...] are nowadays expected as a matter of course" and justified them in terms of the RStV with the "communicative necessity of the mutual exchange of opinions, experiences and information" for Web 2.0 elements in public service Internet offerings, starting with the possibility for users to comment on articles. However, editorial control of user contributions remains a prerequisite for such offerings. Telemedienkonzept. SR-online.de. In: SR-online.de, April 9, 2010, p. 48f., downloaded on September 18, 2010 (PDF; 1.77 MB). The exclusion of on-demand offerings is the basis for the definition of dwell times for public Internet offerings (→ section Dwell times). Without the broad understanding of "simultaneous", which allows for short delays "for technical reasons", this redefinition would not allow public service content to be accessed over the Internet.
In the 12th version of the RStV, which has been in force since 2009, public broadcasters are no longer allowed to offer "non-broadcast press-like offerings" and "comprehensive local reporting" according to Section 11d.12th "RÄStV" This paragraph also includes an addendum with various forms of offerings that are not permitted for the online presence of public broadcasters, including, for example, file-sharing platforms, route planners, and classified ads.Rundfunkstaatsvertrag In: Institut für Urheber- und Medienrecht, retrieved on September 18, 2010.
Dwell times