19

I was recently sent a website which, among other terrible health advice, links to a custom google map which allows users to enter locations where they can shop/go to without wearing a face mask (due to COVID-19) and not face any consequences. Since wearing face masks is mandatory in Germany, are there any laws that are violated by:

  • creating such a map in the first place (although it is user-entered content) and
  • linking to a map from one's own website?

Additional information: The website's legal notice (An Impressum, which is mandatory in Germany) attributes the website to a woman living in Germany.

Reasons why I think this could/should be illegal:

  • It gives advice on how to circumvent public health related laws
  • If enough people utilize this website, it could seriously endanger lots of people
yeah22
  • 117
  • 6
infinitezero
  • 648
  • 6
  • 16
  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. – Dale M Oct 18 '20 at 23:17
  • For the record: I believe the mask wearing regulations are ordinances (Verordnung) rather than laws (Gesetz) as they have been passed by the executive not by the legislative afaik. This may or may not influence the legal consequences the site faces. – Jan Oct 19 '20 at 02:18
  • @Jan yes, they are Verordnungen and they do not even come from the federal government, but from the states (Länder). This means that most legal questions related to COVID-19 measures in Germany are state-dependent. We have often enough seen that the exact same regulation was nullified by courts in some states, but not in others. – wimi Oct 19 '20 at 07:13
  • 3
    @Jan To be more precise, they are Rechtsverordnungen based on § 32 Satz 1 des Infektionsschutzgesetzes vom 20. Juli 2000, which allows, for the purpose of Combating communicable diseases, the restriction of specificly listed rights. They have the power of the law. Violations are Ordnungswidrigkeiten. Mouth and nose covering regulations, to my knowledge, have never been nullified by any court. – Mark Johnson Oct 19 '20 at 09:08
  • Does the website actually tell you to go to those places? Because I could see a very reasonable use of a website like that to quickly look up places I should avoid. – Mark Oct 19 '20 at 14:10
  • Yes, it precisely mentions that are the places that you should go to if you don't want to argue about mask regulations. It also tells you which places to avoid, because they are strict about it. – infinitezero Oct 19 '20 at 14:19

3 Answers3

15
  • The COVID restrictions are new enough that there are few court decisions on how to interpret them. There are frequent requests for court injunctions seeking temporary relief. Some pass, some are denied.
  • The website might accuse locations listed there of breaking the restrictions. Making such an accusation in public sounds like a very bad idea, especially if there is no solid documentation. But the aggrieved party would be any location falsely listed.
  • The site may or may not be hosted in Germany. If it is not, it becomes a really interesting question which law applies.

You might inform the authorities, but beyond that, forget it.

o.m.
  • 17,538
  • 3
  • 37
  • 64
  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. – Dale M Oct 18 '20 at 23:17
  • 1
    It always confuses me when someone accepts an answer that does not answer the question. – Carsten S Oct 19 '20 at 12:19
  • 1
    @CarstenS, it seems that I understood what the OP wanted to know. The OP witnessed what might (or might not) be a crime and wanted to do his or her civic duty. In most cases I'm all for coming forward as a witness, but in a situation like this probably not. Just what the regulations are is too fluid, and "witnessing" a website is too remote. The answer by Zsolt is probably better than mine, but it goes in the same direction. – o.m. Oct 19 '20 at 16:26
12

The page owner might be breaking the law in three ways:

  • She might unrightfully claim that certain businesses are breaking the law, punishable as defamation and under civil law.
  • She might help others to break the law.
  • She might instigate others to the illegal act of not wearing a mask.

However, I see some similarities to the unpunished act of publishing speed camera locations.

On a final note, I doubt that the location of the web server will have an impact on the jurisdiction, as it is clearly targeted towards a local audience.

Zsolt Szilagyi
  • 221
  • 1
  • 3
  • This is especially true, since her address is in Germany. – Mark Johnson Oct 18 '20 at 11:35
  • 3
    The approach is correct, but the "breaking the law" in this case is not a Straftat, but a Ordnungswidrigkeit. So the relevant norms for helping an instigating are not §§ 27, 111 StGB, but §§ 14, 116 OWiG. – K-HB Oct 18 '20 at 15:50
  • @K-HB Good point! – Zsolt Szilagyi Oct 18 '20 at 16:13
  • Good point on the publishing of of speed camera locations. There are definitely similarities there, possibly even useful as precedent should it come to court. – Mast Oct 19 '20 at 07:11
  • 1
    “act of publishing speed camera locations”: not sure I understand this. At least in Italy, that's public domain, and the Polizia Stradale (Highway Police) itself publishes it: https://www.poliziadistato.it/articolo/autovelox-e-tutor-dove-sono – DaG Oct 19 '20 at 13:16
  • Why would publishing speed camera locations fall within one of your bullet points? The entire point of speed cameras is to encourage you to slow down and not break the law. By knowing that there is a speed camera, you are more likely to do so. – JBentley Oct 19 '20 at 14:42
  • In Germany it is not, but private actors like radio stations try to collect and publish those data. – Zsolt Szilagyi Oct 19 '20 at 14:43
  • @JBentley; By publishing the speed cameras, you help people to avoid getting caught speeding, which could be considered help in "crime". But my point is: it is not considered to be such help, so I assume that the homepage in question wouldn't either. – Zsolt Szilagyi Oct 19 '20 at 14:46
  • It just doesn't seem like a very good analogy to me because the logic is a bit convoluted. In OP's scenario, the website is telling you where mask wearing isn't enforced, so that you know where you can go in order to break the law. In the speed camera scenario, you are being told where you must obey the law. It's the opposite. You don't help people to avoid getting caught speeding at the cameras; you stop them from speeding in the first place, which is exactly the purpose of the camera. – JBentley Oct 19 '20 at 14:50
  • @JBentley (Attempting) to list all speed cameras has the effect of telling you where there are none. So the effect can be something like encouraging you to break the law (speeding) everywhere that hasn't one. – blues Oct 19 '20 at 15:03
  • And here I though that e.g. apps that incorporate speed camera locations into your your car gps were illegal. Was that just a myth, or did that change? – Hagen von Eitzen Oct 19 '20 at 15:15
5

As a private person, you can report the behavior to the police and health authorities, but you can not sue them per se - it is up to the Police to investigate (which they have the duty of) and the Staatsanwalt to decide to instigate a lawsuit. The Staatsanwaltschaft also will know best if and which laws were broken by both the listed places and the hoster.

The Health authorities might use your tip to investigate on the listed businesses, and again, it would be them to instruct/request a Staatsanwalt to instigate the lawsuit while themselves can hand out fines for noncompliance with ordinances. In some cases, they might shut down businesses until compliance with health standards is achieved, usually in gastronomic enterprises.

As the regulations are made and struck down, there is a rather fluent state of if the Staatsanwaltschaft will do anything, but reporting it is the only way to bring it to their attention.

Trish
  • 39,097
  • 2
  • 79
  • 156