Featured Photo: Scrabble Stones | © Alexa's Photos on Pixabay
Due to the occasion, I am writing something about the right of the word and especially about that of the written. And I'm already very excited to see how fully qualified lawyers will correct my train of thought. Over the decades I have not only come to the conclusion that every law is primarily a matter of interpretation, but can also present good evidence that the respective interpretation of law is already a political and no longer a purely legal matter in our country.
I'll start with an example from another area. If person A shoots a gun at a person and hits them, then possession of the bullet from that gun also transfers from person A to person B. This means the bullet in person B's body now belongs to person B and no longer to person A.
And as soon as person A gets hold of that bullet from person B's body, this is theft and, if I remember my student days halfway correctly, even armed robbery, if person A hasn't put down their weapon first.
But now back to the world of written words. It is quite analogous to my example above with the words, as soon as a person A addresses words to a person B, these words become their property after reception by person B. This means that person B is the owner of these words and can do whatever they want with them without any ifs or buts, including pointing out who these words originally came from, because that probably falls under the aspect of copyright.
Of course, this also applies to the secrecy of letters, whereby it should be noted that person A is the owner of the letter and its contents until person B has received this letter. The letter and its entire content then becomes the property of person B — in plain English, this person can now do whatever they want with it. By the way, the same applies to e-mails and posts.
The secrecy of letters is only intended to ensure that no person C takes possession of the letter and its content. It's nothing more.
In the event that person A wishes to address words to person B that should only remain known to person A and B, an appropriate agreement can be made in advance. Here, person A and person B mutually undertake that, regardless of who owns the words, they will not be passed on to person C. This is probably known to most under the terms "official secret" or "classified information".
And especially when it comes to official secrets and classified information - if only for the sake of transparency - very restrictive action must be taken, whereby there must also be an actual need for "obscuration". Because communication is the elixir of all life, and it is therefore absolutely vital that information flows as freely as possible.
To calm everyone's minds, I would like to point out that this is only my very personal opinion and of course everyone else may have a completely different opinion.
Lawyers have to decide whether I am right with my opinion, but unfortunately they usually decide according to the respective political climate.
