Wikipedia Wins Dismissal of Baseless Defamation Claims - EFF Options

•Wikipedia Wins Dismissal of Baseless Defamation Claims
EFF, CA -1 hour ago
In a victory for free speech and user-generated content, a New Jersey judge has dismissed baseless defamation claims against the operator of Wikipedia. ...

View the article

God, I hate the EFF. The merits were never reached, so "baseless" implies the wrong thing. Nice spin though: they would never write "Wikipedia Wins Dismissal of Defamation Claims Barred By Statute."

God, I hate the EFF. The merits were never reached, so "baseless" implies the wrong thing. Nice spin though: they would never write "Wikipedia Wins Dismissal of Defamation Claims Barred By Statute."

If defamation by Wikipedia was claimed, regarding statements which Wikipedia did not make, and for which it was not legally responsible, then clearly the claims were "baseless."

According to the Suppressed Bauer vs Wikipedia article from Wikinews, basically, a shady character with a reputation for incompetence and unethical behavior was described by Wikipedia as... a shady character with a reputation for incompetence and unethical behavior. This appears to be an attempt to sue the entire Internet for successfully exposing a scam. So yeah, death to Wikipedia and all, but this doesn't seem like the test case to hang your hat on, IMO. If anything, Wikimedia was too timid and deferential while the lawsuit was underway.

God, I hate the EFF. The merits were never reached, so "baseless" implies the wrong thing. Nice spin though: they would never write "Wikipedia Wins Dismissal of Defamation Claims Barred By Statute."

Indeed, the article spins so fast it probably causes serious frame-dragging.

For what it is worth (little), I do think The Wikimedia Foundation is generally pretty safe via 230, and the second any US senator contemplates altering that protection, Facebook and MySpace will start cutting $50 million dollar checks. But this case is not a great test.

God, I hate the EFF. The merits were never reached, so "baseless" implies the wrong thing. Nice spin though: they would never write "Wikipedia Wins Dismissal of Defamation Claims Barred By Statute."

If defamation by Wikipedia was claimed, regarding statements which Wikipedia did not make, and for which it was not legally responsible, then clearly the claims were "baseless."

According to the Suppressed Bauer vs Wikipedia article from Wikinews, basically, a shady character with a reputation for incompetence and unethical behavior was described by Wikipedia as... a shady character with a reputation for incompetence and unethical behavior. This appears to be an attempt to sue the entire Internet for successfully exposing a scam. So yeah, death to Wikipedia and all, but this doesn't seem like the test case to hang your hat on, IMO. If anything, Wikimedia was too timid and deferential while the lawsuit was underway.

...and as an enemy of the wiki gratuitous derogatory comments must be plastered on as many internet sites as possible.

I can't tell from the article if the specific allegations of defamation by individual editors/poster has been dismssed or not. If not I don't see how this represents any change from the last time we discussed this a few weeks ago. I think it is still in the trial court. Perhaps the EFF blurp is just a bit stale. No, it is not a good case to make law limiting 230 immunity. That has been said here by opponents of Sec. 230 immunity.

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-njd...case_id-206521/ seems to be the case.

The complaint is reprinted here: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bauer_v._Gla...ginal_complaint

Signpost says it is just Wikimedia that is free, everyone else is still on the hook: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wik..._suit_dismissed Though I am unsure that is still true. Searching, a couple shady looking websites suggested two or three other defendents are also off the hook.

Right, I get that the claims against wikipedia are meritless, but the defamation suit itself has not been judged baseless (yet... I agree with GBG that this is no great white hope for a popular or judicial groundswell against CDA immunity).

Ah well. I guess everybody spins. Everybody announces stunning courtroom victories. I'm just betraying my own biases against the CDA and EFF.

God, I hate the EFF. The merits were never reached, so "baseless" implies the wrong thing. Nice spin though: they would never write "Wikipedia Wins Dismissal of Defamation Claims Barred By Statute."

I thought EFF's defence of Wikileaks was worse. Wikileaks had engaged in copyright infringement. When the judge ruled that he did not have jurisdiction in the matter, EFF called it a victory for free speech.

Right, I get that the claims against wikipedia are meritless, but the defamation suit itself has not been judged baseless (yet... I agree with GBG that this is no great white hope for a popular or judicial groundswell against CDA immunity).

Ah well. I guess everybody spins. Everybody announces stunning courtroom victories. I'm just betraying my own biases against the CDA and EFF.

Wake me up when one gets in front of an appeals court.

I don't think Wikipedia will actually do it. They have too much of a halo such that even totally unwarranted defamation can be written off in the public eye. I suspect any traction on CDA will arise from the horrifying irresponsibility of other sites.

I put my faith in something like Jane Doe v. Friendfinder. The facts in that case are the kind of thing that would turn the public against CDA immunity if it applied. Someone with an apparent grudge made an account under an assumed identity to request embarrassing sexual acts from people on Adult Friendfinder. I think it's telling that the online freedom crowd thinks this ruling terrible (quoted in the linked article). Amoral bastards. I just looked this case up. There's been no action since the motion to reconsider was denied, but their discovery plan doesn't call for them to finish their depositions until the end of the year. Trial by this plan would be May 2009 (assuming they're not now deep in settlement negotiations). Maybe an appeal will come after that. The slim chance of a First Circuit precedent in 2010 is not much to look forward to, but it'd be nice.

Using the Lanham Act (trademark) and state publicity rights to get around the CDA is a pretty clever move on this judge's part--intellectual property doesn't apply to Sec. 230. At least this way, websites cannot allow others to pretend to be you on their site.

On the other hand, this might actually make it worse. The easiest way out of this liability is to force all contributers to be pseudonymous. On the other hand, it would take at least some supervision to do that, and it would be a good thing, I think.

The Roommates case, which was Ninth Circuit, is interesting, but the Federal civil rights exception is nothing to get too excited about. I think it's great that the CDA didn't roll back civil rights acts online, but that's a very small facet of the problem.

My point is that Wikipedia is so well regarded, I think it's up to other reckless sites to erode CDA immunity. I can't imagine that congress would ever roll it back even a little--not with Google, Facebook, Fox, and everyone online against it.

This post has been edited by One: Thu 14th August 2008, 3:21am

I don't think Wikipedia will actually do it. They have too much of a halo such that even totally unwarranted defamation can be written off in the public eye. I suspect any traction on CDA will arise from the horrifying irresponsibility of other sites.

I put my faith in something like Jane Doe v. Friendfinder. The facts in that case are the kind of thing that would turn the public against CDA immunity if it applied. Someone with an apparent grudge made an account under an assumed identity to request embarrassing sexual acts from people on Adult Friendfinder. I think it's telling that the online freedom crowd thinks this ruling terrible (quoted in the linked article). Amoral bastards. I just looked this case up. There's been no action since the motion to reconsider was denied, but their discovery plan doesn't call for them to finish their depositions until the end of the year. Trial by this plan would be May 2009 (assuming they're not now deep in settlement negotiations). Maybe an appeal will come after that. The slim chance of a First Circuit precedent in 2010 is not much to look forward to, but it'd be nice.

Using the Lanham Act (trademark) and state publicity rights to get around the CDA is a pretty clever move on this judge's part--intellectual property doesn't apply to Sec. 230. At least this way, websites cannot allow others to pretend to be you on their site.

On the other hand, this might actually make it worse. The easiest way out of this liability is to force all contributers to be pseudonymous. On the other hand, it would take at least some supervision to do that, and it would be a good thing, I think.

The Roommates case, which was Ninth Circuit, is interesting, but the Federal civil rights exception is nothing to get too excited about. I think it's great that the CDA didn't roll back civil rights acts online, but that's a very small facet of the problem.

My point is that Wikipedia is so well regarded, I think it's up to other reckless sites to erode CDA immunity. I can't imagine that congress would ever roll it back even a little--not with Google, Facebook, Fox, and everyone online against it.

I think it play out something like this: WP will for sometime continue to prevail on Sec 230 issues in trial courts. The parties adverse to WP will not bring appeals; Cases involving other websites will continue to chip away at Sec. 230 immunity, building on Roommates content shaping reasoning; Eventually, after the law develops, WP will lose a Sec 230 argument in a trial court; WP, given the extensive backing of EFF, will almost certainly raise to the bait and appeal. Then it is possible that we get a direct look at WP and 230 immunity.

Of course it possible to play out with a whimper, the law developing in a direction so limiting Sec. 230 immunity that WP comes to rely on some risk management strategy other than immunity without a direct decision from any appeals court.

Ninth Circuit? They were not legalizing drug use for mantra chanters. They were viewing narrowly an immunity that lets people off the hook for their irresponsible behavior. I don't think that looks much like wacky California arugula law.

Wait … !?

Is this about:

1. (Baseless Defamation) Claims, i.e., claims of baseless defamation, or
2. Baseless (Defamation Claims), i.e., baseless claims of defamation?

Jon

This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey: Thu 14th August 2008, 12:42pm

Ninth Circuit? They were not legalizing drug use for mantra chanters. They were viewing narrowly an immunity that lets people off the hook for their irresponsible behavior. I don't think that looks much like wacky California arugula law.

Ninth circuit also tanked National Security Letters.

Of course, then the next year Congress gave immunity to service-firms that cooperated without them, so......

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Thu 14th August 2008, 6:43pm

Also note that the 9th Circuit would likely be controlling authority for any diversity (e.g. between parties of different states) action brought against a defendant whose principal place of business was San Fransisco, at least on matters SCOTUS has not addressed.

God, I hate the EFF. The merits were never reached, so "baseless" implies the wrong thing. Nice spin though: they would never write "Wikipedia Wins Dismissal of Defamation Claims Barred By Statute."

I thought EFF's defence of Wikileaks was worse. Wikileaks had engaged in copyright infringement. When the judge ruled that he did not have jurisdiction in the matter, EFF called it a victory for free speech.

Time for an EFF FOIA.


They are hardly bipartisan.



This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Thu 14th August 2008, 7:09pm

Problem with FOIA is that 1) There's at least 20 Federal Agencies where you need to file them to find answers and (2) In recent years laws have changed so that they can tell you to "go take a hike" so you either need friends on Capitol Hill to pry open the files, or to get the ACLU all worked up to file an appeal.

On that note: You guys realize that in almost every other country in the world, there is a Federal Agency for Privacy Protection, which safeguards citizen/consumer rights- don't you? In the U.S., this role is handled by a limp-wristed office within the usually offending Federal Agency, who answers to the Chief in charge that approved of the violations. Because, "that works".

Then we have the EFF, which seems highly biased to oppose any sort of protection that helps consumers or private persons. That's not free speech. That's abuse. But we all know that here.

I wonder who we (the U.S.) are sending here, to the 30th International Conference of Data Protection and Privacy, in Strasburg, France, next October. The head of the Privacy Department at the DOJ, or DHS, or would it be the ODNI? Bunch of nice guys. Just keep doing what you're doing.

Ok, I think I have a lot of credentials for disliking the EFF, but imagining them to be part of a government conspiracy is wacky.

People believe in this stuff. I have friends that talk like EFF advocates. Radical "free speech" anticopyright/defamation/control is an appealing meme to lots of folks online. Web libertarianism, and all that. Ockham's razor says we don't need the spooks to explain their behavior (and it's difficult to understand why the spooks would want to support the EFF anyway).

So I suggest you save your FOIA requests for something else.

Ok, I think I have a lot of credentials for disliking the EFF......................So I suggest you save your FOIA requests for something else.

I don't think you have ANY credentials, and the day I take advice from you is a sad day indeed.

You promised not to talk to me. I was so grateful (!) Please do your best to be mature for your years and honor your own words.

Having said that, sometimes truth is stranger than fiction. Isn't it.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Thu 14th August 2008, 9:15pm

I said no such thing. I said it's not worthwhile for me to talk to you, and I'm almost certain it's true. But I'm weak, and I reflexively point out absurd statements. So while you're still making, 'em, I might say comment. I'll strive not to argue with you, but that shouldn't be hard because you tend to just make attacks. Like a Cabalist actually, except you call people little gilrs instead of POV warriors.

My sweet little net-blossom. Does your mother miss you? You are *so* young.


((((((One)))))))))





ps: You aren't going to believe this, but I don't mean the mom comment in a nasty way. You really seem like the kind of guy that's close to his mom. It's evident. Nothing to be ashamed of. Au contraire. I'm from a close family too. And I am close to my Dad. Which is why probably I wind up hanging out with guys.

- but really, it is going to wind up bugging people if we keep hijacking every thread to have this kind of argument. So please, just give 'debating with me' a rest. If you don't agree with me, or like me, that's fine, One. Ok?

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey: Fri 15th August 2008, 12:02am