![]() |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daniel Brandt |
![]()
Post
#1
|
Postmaster ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 2,473 Joined: Member No.: 77 ![]() |
slimvirgin AT gmail.com
cc: info AT wikimedia.org December 24, 2006 Dear Sarah: I am looking for a Florida-based attorney to negotiate with the Wikimedia Foundation to take down my biography. If this fails, I plan to file an invasion-of-privacy lawsuit against the Foundation. Considering the fact that all the Talk pages are also made available to the search engines, I may include a defamation-of-character complaint in the suit. My main interest in litigation is to establish in a Florida court that Section 230 of the U.S. Communications Decency Act does not provide immunity to the Foundation, due to the fact that the Foundation's entire structure is designed to moderate the content on Wikipedia. I will argue that because of this, the Foundation functions as a publisher rather than a service provider. Only service providers are immune under Section 230. I appreciate the fact that you supported my request to delete the article in October 2005, after we worked on it for a week and were unable to reach agreement. You warned me that you lacked the power to make the deletion stick, if some other administrators disagreed. This is exactly what happened. I also appreciate your support of Linuxbeak's effort in December 2005 to move the content into other relevant articles on Wikipedia, so that most of the content would still exist, but not be featured in one Wikipedia article under my name. This effort was one that Linuxbeak and I agreed to at the time, but which failed due to a lack of support. I deleted hivemind.html as Linuxbeak made his effort, but then restored it when his effort failed. As you can see, the hivemind.html page is much larger now and also has small photos of most of the perpetrators. The last meaningful AfD on my bio was concluded on April 9, 2006. Now I am asking you to initiate another AfD. This is something only a major administrator can do, because minor administrators will intervene on the grounds of "Speedy Keep." I believe that one last meaningful AfD for my biography is warranted before this issue escalates further, and I hope you agree with me. If the article gets deleted, I will take down the hivemind.html page on www.wikipedia-watch.org (but not the hive2.html page), and will also take down the findchat.html page, the 1,545 chat log files that are linked from there, and the chat search engine. Thank you, Daniel Brandt |
![]() ![]() |
Daniel Brandt |
![]()
Post
#2
|
Postmaster ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 2,473 Joined: Member No.: 77 ![]() |
The main thing for me is to get Section 230 past a Florida judge, so that the case can go forward. It could turn out that the Foundation will appeal up the federal courts if a Florida judge agrees with me that Section 230 doesn't apply. That could mean that the Florida judge's hands are tied until the federal appeals are exhausted. That's okay -- we need a good airing of why the Foundation should or should not be considered a "publisher" as opposed to a "service provider." If the case encourages discussion in the press on this issue, that would be helpful. Congress will soon realize from such a confused discussion that Section 230 needs revision.
If Congress realizes this, they will certainly revise the law by using language that applies to Wikipedia in ways that Jimmy and Brad won't like. That's how I read the current political climate regarding cyberlaw. When Section 230 of the CDA was passed in 1996, the Internet was much smaller, there were no blogs, and anonymity on the Internet was less threatening to politicians and corporations. If Jimmy and Brad feel that it's too risky to argue on Section 230, given the fact that Jimmy has already intervened in numerous cases of marginal Wikipedia content, then the question becomes one of Florida's laws. I can claim defamation of character if the judge agrees that the Talk pages are "published" by virtue of their availability to search engines and scrapers. Otherwise it would be restricted to a "false light" and/or "invasion of privacy" case. Damages are primarily interesting to me insofar as I get my expenses covered. At this point, that means I'm interested in whether a prospective attorney thinks my case is strong enough to take it on contingency. When the attorney is considering this, naturally he is also considering whether he will be able to collect if he wins the case. That's why I'm encouraging the Foundation trustees to purchase liability insurance. Insurance companies will not insure directors and officers against cases that have already been filed, so I hope they get insurance soon. I've asked them but they won't tell me if they're insured. Even if they aren't insured, that little donations bar on every Wikipedia page is helpful as I try to interest attorneys in Florida. It's now at $877,729 and rising. |
nobs |
![]()
Post
#3
|
#2242 most prolific contributor of out of 1 million+ WP users ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 575 Joined: From: North America Member No.: 16 ![]() |
...If the case encourages discussion in the press on this issue, that would be helpful. Congress will soon realize from such a confused discussion that Section 230 needs revision. If Congress realizes this, they will certainly revise the law by using language that applies to Wikipedia in ways that Jimmy and Brad won't like. That's how I read the current political climate regarding cyberlaw. When Section 230 of the CDA was passed in 1996, the Internet was much smaller, there were no blogs, and anonymity on the Internet was less threatening to politicians and corporations. If Jimmy and Brad feel that it's too risky to argue on Section 230, given the fact that Jimmy has already intervened in numerous cases of marginal Wikipedia content, then the question becomes one of Florida's laws. I can claim defamation of character if the judge agrees that the Talk pages are "published" by virtue of their availability to search engines and scrapers. Otherwise it would be restricted to a "false light" and/or "invasion of privacy" case. Yes, this addresses specifically what I am talking about. Mr. Brandt recognizes the risk of not gaining much because of current law. So "If Congress realizes this, they will certainly revise the law", but that hypothetical reaction can not be applied retroactively. Mr. Brandt must determine if his primary objective is (A ) to gain redress and enforcement (because Talk pages are "published" by virtue of their availability to search engines and scrapers) which he considers defamatory, and probably can prove real damages, or (B ) the Principal of the matter--i.e. that Wikipedia is out of control--inwhich case Mr. Brandt merely becomes a martyr for a cause, if he looses. Here is another Finding of Fact: QUOTE ...postings to the talk page of an article about a Wikipedia user constitute harassment. Mr. Brandt is a Registered user. Remedy: QUOTE The material ...may be removed by any user Here Bauder, SlimVirgin, David Gerard and JKelly discuss QUOTE Here Bauder says the material is QUOTE ... laid out in full on the talk page.... That criticism might belong in the article, but Nob is "disrupting Wikipedia to make a point." Why they do this, I think, is so the material will show up on Google. We might consider shielding our talk pages from Google as folks are gaming us in this way. Mr. Bauder says Wikipedia:NPA overrides WP:Attribution policy for Registered users who are the subject of a mainspace article after I protest for the umteenth time, QUOTE I am probably the first user banned for personal attacks who provided footnotes & citations for his personal attacks. Also, the Stephen Schwartz case somewhat parallels Daniel Brandt's, which reading between the lines may have partially resulted QUOTE ...in favor of the Organization in a foreign jurisdiction.Analysis of what's presented above: There is a way for Mr. Brandt to have the material removed he deems defamatory from Talk pages, based upon his status as a Registered user. It would be helpful to be unbanned and a "user in good standing", so to speak, but that would probably require an out of court stipulated settlement at this point. What is at issue is, (A ) does Brandt actually want the material removed, or (B ) is this more an effort to influence judicial interpretation, legislative action, and public understanding of the various issues? This post has been edited by nobs: |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: |