Nowhere to hide, libel not covered by 1st Options

[lilburne]

Court orders hand over of identity of anonymous wikipedia editors.

http://lawkipedia.com/social-networking/id...-amendment.html

libel not covered by 1st - apparently.

[Kelly Martin]

I think it's a matter of time before someone in the UK gets their ass sued into oblivion for editing Wikipedia, and shortly after that there will be no UK editors of Wikipedia left, once all of them realize that they're totally vulnerable there to defamation claims.

It'll take longer to break the shield in the US, but eventually that'll happen to. The difference between Wikipedia, IMO, and random blogs, forums, and Twitter is that the latter are all "take it as you find it" random junk with no inherent credibility, while the former holds itself forth as a trusted authority by claiming to be an encyclopedia, and eventually that distinction is going to make a difference somewhere. If you want to wear the uniform, you have to walk the beat, as it were.

[Malleus]

I think it's a matter of time before someone in the UK gets their ass sued into oblivion for editing Wikipedia, and shortly after that there will be no UK editors of Wikipedia left, once all of them realize that they're totally vulnerable there to defamation claims.

I think that's very unlikely. How many editors do you think have the assets to make it worthwhile for a plantiff to sue them in a UK civil court? Very few or just none? As Robert Maxwell so ably demonstrated, UK libel law is a plaything of the rich, a tool to suppress anything they'd prefer others not to know about. In reality it has very little if anything to do with spreading lies. But equally those without significant assets are immune to it, and can say pretty much whatever they please.

This post has been edited by Malleus:

[RMHED]

I think it's a matter of time before someone in the UK gets their ass sued into oblivion for editing Wikipedia, and shortly after that there will be no UK editors of Wikipedia left, once all of them realize that they're totally vulnerable there to defamation claims.

I think that's very unlikely. How many editors do you think have the assets to make it worthwhile for a plantiff to sue them in a UK civil court? Very few or just none? As Robert Maxwell so ably demonstrated, UK libel law is a plaything of the rich, a tool to suppress anything they'd prefer others not to know about. In reality it has very little if anything to do with spreading lies. But equally those without significant assets are immune to it, and can say pretty much whatever they please.

Quite a few I'd imagine, given the UK's love of home ownership.

[Malleus]

I think it's a matter of time before someone in the UK gets their ass sued into oblivion for editing Wikipedia, and shortly after that there will be no UK editors of Wikipedia left, once all of them realize that they're totally vulnerable there to defamation claims.

I think that's very unlikely. How many editors do you think have the assets to make it worthwhile for a plantiff to sue them in a UK civil court? Very few or just none? As Robert Maxwell so ably demonstrated, UK libel law is a plaything of the rich, a tool to suppress anything they'd prefer others not to know about. In reality it has very little if anything to do with spreading lies. But equally those without significant assets are immune to it, and can say pretty much whatever they please.

Quite a few I'd imagine, given the UK's love of home ownership.

And how exactly do you reconcile home ownership with the commonly reported demographics of wikipedia editors? Winning a libel case doesn't give the plaintiff automatic access to any assets owned by the plaintiff's parents.

[Abd]

And how exactly do you reconcile home ownership with the commonly reported demographics of wikipedia editors? Winning a libel case doesn't give the plaintiff automatic access to any assets owned by the plaintiff's parents.

I'm not completely sure this is true. Parents of minors can be held responsible for the torts of their children.

There is also a theory that might be pursued, that if Wikipedia structure fosters and allows and facilitates torts, even if in individual cases, Wikipedia might be held blameless, there might be a cause of action. I certainly would not want to depend on the absence of such liability.

What would be interesting would be a legal notice to Wikipedia, on behalf of specific possible plaintiffs, but also providing a general warning. of possible liability if the Foundation continues to leave the "kids" without supervision. Others might then be able to rely upon this warning, if it were properly published.

[Kelly Martin]

I'm not completely sure this is true. Parents of minors can be held responsible for the torts of their children.

Not for intentional torts. Guardians are not liable for the intentional torts of their wards, although you can sue a guardian for negligent supervision if the exercise of reasonable supervision of the ward by the guardian would have prevented the harm which occurred.

There is also a theory that might be pursued, that if Wikipedia structure fosters and allows and facilitates torts, even if in individual cases, Wikipedia might be held blameless, there might be a cause of action. I certainly would not want to depend on the absence of such liability.

What would be interesting would be a legal notice to Wikipedia, on behalf of specific possible plaintiffs, but also providing a general warning. of possible liability if the Foundation continues to leave the "kids" without supervision. Others might then be able to rely upon this warning, if it were properly published.

The WMF is fairly clearly immunized against this form of liability by Section 230. Section 230 clearly abrogates any duty for a provider of Internet services to supervise its customers' use of those services; since providers have no duty of supervision there is no way any such supervision could be negligent.

The notion that Wikipedia is a nuisance is an interesting one, but nuisance law is generally thought of as a real property action, and I've never seen anyone apply nuisance law without there being some connection to real property (or the owners or lessees thereof) that is being affected by the nuisance.

[thekohser]

The WMF is fairly clearly immunized against this form of liability by Section 230. Section 230 clearly abrogates any duty for a provider of Internet services to supervise its customers' use of those services; since providers have no duty of supervision there is no way any such supervision could be negligent.

The notion that Wikipedia is a nuisance is an interesting one, but nuisance law is generally thought of as a real property action, and I've never seen anyone apply nuisance law without there being some connection to real property (or the owners or lessees thereof) that is being affected by the nuisance.

Kelly, I've spoken with a lawyer who was a key figure in the breast implants cases, and he thinks that Section 230 could be trumped by Wikipedia's problem of "invasion of privacy" of some of the individuals it earmarks as "notable", then allows libel or the chance for libel on a 24/7 basis. I think that has some merit, but I'm not a lawyer, of course.

[Abd]

The WMF is fairly clearly immunized against this form of liability by Section 230. Section 230 clearly abrogates any duty for a provider of Internet services to supervise its customers' use of those services; since providers have no duty of supervision there is no way any such supervision could be negligent.

The notion that Wikipedia is a nuisance is an interesting one, but nuisance law is generally thought of as a real property action, and I've never seen anyone apply nuisance law without there being some connection to real property (or the owners or lessees thereof) that is being affected by the nuisance.

Kelly, I've spoken with a lawyer who was a key figure in the breast implants cases, and he thinks that Section 230 could be trumped by Wikipedia's problem of "invasion of privacy" of some of the individuals it earmarks as "notable", then allows libel or the chance for libel on a 24/7 basis. I think that has some merit, but I'm not a lawyer, of course.

We are talking about the edges of the law, and for anyone to presume some outcome in advance would be foolish. Here, depending on section 230 immunity, as if the volunteer community for Wikipedia is a bunch of "customers," is awfully shaky.

A more apt characterization might be that the WMF uses them to accomplish its goal, building an encyclopedia, from which it benefits (by gathering donations), and it could be claimed that it is negligent in supervising its servants.

To flesh this theory out, suppose that Wikipedia profits through increased traffic and thus increased donor support, based on publishing libel. I think that the "publisher" for Wikipedia is not the volunteers, it's the WMF. Is the WMF immunized against the unsupervised misbehavior of those who volunteer, according to a system over which the WMF has control, should it choose to exercise that control? That, to me, sounds like an unresolved legal issue, not a slam-dunk in any direction.

It gets even clearer if it's realized that a system that would far better protect people from libel exists, and was just rejected. Not rejected by the WMF, but by the "body of volunteers." Pending Revisions. The WMF could, in fact, insist, if it had the cojones to confront the alleged involved community.

(the core continually pretends that it is the community, when the vast bulk of contributions are coming from outside the core.)