Jimbo Unilaterally Cashiers WMF's Section 230 Immunity, Declares Course Materials in Applied Ethics "Beyond Scope" Options Rating

[Jon Awbrey]

…

The above content has been censored under the provisions of the Wikilawyer-Wikiclient Confidentiality Act of 16 Feb 2009.

The more that Wikipediots fuzz the line between Free Speech and Academic Freedom, the worse it will be for both sides in the end.

Jon

[Moulton]

The difference between W-R and WP is that W-R doesn't purport to be an educational venue. W-R doesn't go to the IRS and petition for tax-exempt status as an authentic educational enterprise, and then appeal to donors to fund the "sum of all human knowledge."

And we can also observe that W-R offers all manner of content including rants, diatribes, parody, satire, wicked humor, scathing criticisms, popcorn drama, bloviating blather, and the occasional serious essay, news analysis, or academic commentary.

Would Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, or Borat be better suited to contribute to W-R or to WP?

[Random832]

The difference between W-R and WP is that W-R doesn't purport to be an educational venue. W-R doesn't go to the IRS and petition for tax-exempt status as an authentic educational enterprise, and then appeal to donors to fund the "sum of all human knowledge."

All of which means exactly what regarding the Section 230 immunity?

[Moulton]

I'll take "Or Else" for twenty quatloos, Alex.

The difference between W-R and WP is that W-R doesn't purport to be an educational venue. W-R doesn't go to the IRS and petition for tax-exempt status as an authentic educational enterprise, and then appeal to donors to fund the "sum of all human knowledge."

All of which means exactly what regarding the Section 230 immunity?

It's just another aspect of how the actions of Jimbo routinely jeopardizes the legal status of the project.

Elsewhere today, someone likened Jimbo to an ill-advised monarch who was ill prepared to play a leadership role.

Both Section 230 immunity and the IRS tax exemption are essential aspects of WP's legal status, and both of which Jimbo recklessly jeopardizes by a single ill-advised intervention.

He does it yet again with the erratic Giano intervention yesterday.

[One]

I'll take "Or Else" for twenty quatloos, Alex.

The difference between W-R and WP is that W-R doesn't purport to be an educational venue. W-R doesn't go to the IRS and petition for tax-exempt status as an authentic educational enterprise, and then appeal to donors to fund the "sum of all human knowledge."

All of which means exactly what regarding the Section 230 immunity?

It's just another aspect of how the actions of Jimbo routinely jeopardizes the legal status of the project.

Elsewhere today, someone likened Jimbo to an ill-advised monarch who was ill prepared to play a leadership role.

Both Section 230 immunity and the IRS tax exemption are essential aspects of WP's legal status, and both of which Jimbo recklessly jeopardizes by a single ill-advised intervention.

He does it yet again with the erratic Giano intervention yesterday.

Again and again, 230 doesn't work that way. Other defendants have actually hired paid staff who are charged with deleting material and banning users. That did not affect 230 immunity in the slightest. In fact, allowing that sort of thing is precisely the reason Congress passed 230.

For the love of God, read it.
other information content providers + interactive computer service = immunity for the provider and users

This post has been edited by One: Mon 9th February 2009, 8:34pm

[jch]

I'll take "Or Else" for twenty quatloos, Alex.

The difference between W-R and WP is that W-R doesn't purport to be an educational venue. W-R doesn't go to the IRS and petition for tax-exempt status as an authentic educational enterprise, and then appeal to donors to fund the "sum of all human knowledge."

All of which means exactly what regarding the Section 230 immunity?

It's just another aspect of how the actions of Jimbo routinely jeopardizes the legal status of the project.

Elsewhere today, someone likened Jimbo to an ill-advised monarch who was ill prepared to play a leadership role.

Both Section 230 immunity and the IRS tax exemption are essential aspects of WP's legal status, and both of which Jimbo recklessly jeopardizes by a single ill-advised intervention.

He does it yet again with the erratic Giano intervention yesterday.

Does it matter which "hat" he's wearing at the time? He's not staff, as they're pointing out on his losing steward reconfirmation, and he's not actually part of the board. This makes him a figurehead and local admin. The only right he has which can allow him to block Giano is as a local admin.

I think the question is, "Is ArbCom willing to take disciplinary steps against Jimbo, as Jimbo blocked outside the blocking policy?"

[Moulton]

Since the material which Jimbo summarily erased at Wikiversity is eminently respectable educational material which is in no way "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable" (indeed the material teaches important principles of good governance enshrined in Article I of the US Constitution), he cannot rely on Section 230 to immunize himself from the claim that he is not a publisher exercising ultimate editorial control over the content to be published at Wikiversity. His claim that such educational materials, associated with a course on Applied Ethics, is "beyond the scope" of the project firmly establishes Jimbo as the supreme and final arbiter of editorial judgment in academic subject matters that have nothing to do with Section 230 protections.

The fact that the materials he edited out are undeniably mainstream educational materials related to teaching such concepts as the Rule of Law, Due Process, Civil Rights, Evidence-Based Reasoning, Hypothesis Testing, the Scientific Method, and Scholarly Ethics also jeopardizes the claim that WMF is soliciting and applying donor funds for its prominently advertised educational mission.

Jimbo is Chairman Emeritus of WMF Board of Trustees and he styles himself as the "spiritual leader" of the project who exercises magisterial control of policy and practices. The events of the last six months on Wikiversity underscore the degree to which his loyal appointees faithfully follow his lead, no matter how misguided or questionable his judgment might be.

[One]

Since the material which Jimbo summarily erased at Wikiversity is eminently respectable educational material which is in no way "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable" (indeed the material teaches important principles of good governance enshrined in Article I of the US Constitution), he cannot rely on Section 230 to immunize himself from the claim that he is not a publisher exercising ultimate editorial control over the content to be published at Wikiversity. His claim that such educational materials, associated with a course on Applied Ethics, is "beyond the scope" of the project firmly establishes Jimbo as the supreme and final arbiter of editorial judgment in academic subject matters that have nothing to do with Section 230 protections.

The fact that the materials he edited out are undeniably mainstream educational materials related to teaching such concepts as the Rule of Law, Due Process, Civil Rights, Evidence-Based Reasoning, Hypothesis Testing, the Scientific Method, and Scholarly Ethics also jeopardizes the claim that WMF is soliciting and applying donor funds for its prominently advertised educational mission.

Jimbo is Chairman Emeritus of WMF Board of Trustees and he styles himself as the "spiritual leader" of the project who exercises magisterial control of policy and practices. The events of the last six months on Wikiversity underscore the degree to which his loyal appointees faithfully follow his lead, no matter how misguided or questionable his judgment might be.

Wrong. People allows posts of whatever they want--as long as someone else is the source, the online site does not have publisher liability. For example, Hotornot.com can reject photos of animals, buildings, or even people just because they think are too ugly, naked, or for any other reason they feel like. It doesn't matter how good or academic or mainstream it is. They can pick whatever material they like, and scrap the rest. This does not make them liable--not unless they actually participated in the creation of the material.

None of this invalidates section 230 immunity. I've read some case quotations on point (about the job of an editor not waiving the immunity, or somesuch), but I'm done trying to tell you.

Moulton, you're just wrong on this point. End of story.

This post has been edited by One: Mon 9th February 2009, 10:31pm

[Moulton]

Since the material which Jimbo summarily erased at Wikiversity is eminently respectable educational material which is in no way "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable" (indeed the material teaches important principles of good governance enshrined in Article I of the US Constitution), he cannot rely on Section 230 to immunize himself from the claim that he is not a publisher exercising ultimate editorial control over the content to be published at Wikiversity. His claim that such educational materials, associated with a course on Applied Ethics, is "beyond the scope" of the project firmly establishes Jimbo as the supreme and final arbiter of editorial judgment in academic subject matters that have nothing to do with Section 230 protections.

The fact that the materials he edited out are undeniably mainstream educational materials related to teaching such concepts as the Rule of Law, Due Process, Civil Rights, Evidence-Based Reasoning, Hypothesis Testing, the Scientific Method, and Scholarly Ethics also jeopardizes the claim that WMF is soliciting and applying donor funds for its prominently advertised educational mission.

Jimbo is Chairman Emeritus of WMF Board of Trustees and he styles himself as the "spiritual leader" of the project who exercises magisterial control of policy and practices. The events of the last six months on Wikiversity underscore the degree to which his loyal appointees faithfully follow his lead, no matter how misguided or questionable his judgment might be.

Wrong. People allows posts of whatever they want--as long as someone else is the source, the online site does not have publisher liability.

The source of the material on Bill of Attainder is Article I of the US Constitution. The source of the material on NYBrad's Principles of Jurisprudence (as articulated in the FM/SV/Cla68 ArbCom case) was NYBrad. The source of the material on the first three laws of the Code of Hammurabi is Hammurabi of Mespotamia. Jimbo did not allow that material in Wikiversity, full stop. He declared it "beyond the scope" of the project.

For example, Hotornot.com can reject photos of animals, buildings, or even people just because they think are too ugly, naked, or for any other reason they feel like. It doesn't matter how good or academic or mainstream it is. They can pick whatever material they like, and scrap the rest. This does not make them liable--not unless they actually participated in the creation of the material.

What was wrong with material on Bill of Attainder or on Hammurabi's Code? Is that unsuitable educational material for a course on Applied Ethics?

None of this invalidates section 230 immunity. I've read some case quotations on point (about the job of an editor not waiving the immunity, or somesuch), but I'm done trying to tell you.

Jimbo can invoke Section 230 immunity to redact indecent material without becoming a "publisher" under the definition of the law. When he edits out educational content that originates in the US Constitution, he is not protected by Section 230. At that point, he has become a "publisher" in the ordinary sense of discretionary judgment on what to publish. He expressly declared that material on civics and governance theories and ethics to be beyond the charter and remit of WMF-sponsored projects.

Moulton, you're just wrong on this point. End of story.

I don't think so, One.

I think it's the beginning of a remarkable story about how Jimbo undercut the published mission of the site and breached the promise to donors to provide the "sum of all human knowledge". If that fundamental material is out of bounds, per the dictat of Jimbo, then I think that's news worth discussing.

[One]

Jimbo can invoke Section 230 immunity to redact indecent material without becoming a "publisher" under the definition of the law. When he edits out educational content that originates in the US Constitution, he is not protected by Section 230.

Why on earth do you believe this? Do you see an exception in the law? This is a law, you know.

Where in Section 230 does it say anything like this?

[GlassBeadGame]

Jimbo can invoke Section 230 immunity to redact indecent material without becoming a "publisher" under the definition of the law. When he edits out educational content that originates in the US Constitution, he is not protected by Section 230.

Why on earth do you believe this? Do you see an exception in the law? This is a law, you know.

Where in Section 230 does it say anything like this?

It is probably possible to conduct a meaningful discussion on this forum about Section 230 without invoking the Code of Hammurabi nor having a law student tell everyone else they don't know what they are talking about. I am not inclined to enter this discussion and get down to cases until both of these typical web 2.0 excesses cease.

[JoseClutch]

Jimbo can invoke Section 230 immunity to redact indecent material without becoming a "publisher" under the definition of the law. When he edits out educational content that originates in the US Constitution, he is not protected by Section 230.

Why on earth do you believe this? Do you see an exception in the law? This is a law, you know.

Where in Section 230 does it say anything like this?

It is probably possible to conduct a meaningful discussion on this forum about Section 230 without invoking the Code of Hammurabi nor having a law student tell everyone else they don't know what they are talking about. I am not inclined to enter this discussion and get down to cases until both of these typical web 2.0 excesses cease.

The usual internet lingo for this is "Good luck with that. Let me know how it works out."

I think the second the number 230 appears in a post, you are probably safe to disregard it in its entirety.

[One]

Jimbo can invoke Section 230 immunity to redact indecent material without becoming a "publisher" under the definition of the law. When he edits out educational content that originates in the US Constitution, he is not protected by Section 230.

Why on earth do you believe this? Do you see an exception in the law? This is a law, you know.

Where in Section 230 does it say anything like this?

It is probably possible to conduct a meaningful discussion on this forum about Section 230 without invoking the Code of Hammurabi nor having a law student tell everyone else they don't know what they are talking about. I am not inclined to enter this discussion and get down to cases until both of these typical web 2.0 excesses cease.

Oh, to be a pseudonym.

[GlassBeadGame]

Jimbo can invoke Section 230 immunity to redact indecent material without becoming a "publisher" under the definition of the law. When he edits out educational content that originates in the US Constitution, he is not protected by Section 230.

Why on earth do you believe this? Do you see an exception in the law? This is a law, you know.

Where in Section 230 does it say anything like this?

It is probably possible to conduct a meaningful discussion on this forum about Section 230 without invoking the Code of Hammurabi nor having a law student tell everyone else they don't know what they are talking about. I am not inclined to enter this discussion and get down to cases until both of these typical web 2.0 excesses cease.

Oh, to be a pseudonym.

I know I make it look easy.

[jch]

Jimbo can invoke Section 230 immunity to redact indecent material without becoming a "publisher" under the definition of the law. When he edits out educational content that originates in the US Constitution, he is not protected by Section 230.

Why on earth do you believe this? Do you see an exception in the law? This is a law, you know.

Where in Section 230 does it say anything like this?

It is probably possible to conduct a meaningful discussion on this forum about Section 230 without invoking the Code of Hammurabi nor having a law student tell everyone else they don't know what they are talking about. I am not inclined to enter this discussion and get down to cases until both of these typical web 2.0 excesses cease.

Oh, to be a pseudonym.

Nobody's even been called a Nazi yet. Get cracking!

[One]

Oh, to be a pseudonym.

I know I make it look easy.

Those good old days, back when I was a pseudonym, when the mods didn't shit on me.

Do you want me to stop posting here?

This post has been edited by One: Tue 10th February 2009, 12:33am

[Moulton]

Jimbo can invoke Section 230 immunity to redact indecent material without becoming a "publisher" under the definition of the law. When he edits out educational content that originates in the US Constitution, he is not protected by Section 230.

Why on earth do you believe this? Do you see an exception in the law? This is a law, you know.

Where in Section 230 does it say anything like this?

Prior to the advent of the Internet, back in the days of print and broadcast media, the owner-operator had total editorial control of what got printed or went out over the air waves. They were defined as a publisher, with full editorial control, and were liable for what got published or broadcast through their systems.

Contrast that with the common carrier (telephone company) that had zero editorial control over messages transmitted through its services. Common carriers, by law, were immune from liability for the content of messages.

With the advent of the Internet, the bright line separating common carriers from publishers became blurred. Operators of sites wanted it both ways — they wanted the immunity of common carriers, but they also wanted the right to exercise editorial oversight over content.

Section 230 struck a compromise. If the owner-operator of a site wanted common carrier immunity, they had to take a hands-off approach to editing the content, with a narrow exception spelled out in Section 230: the owner-operator could edit, redact, or censor content that was "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable" without otherwise giving up common-carrier immunity for liability of content.

But Jimbo exceeded the scope of the content for which Section 230 confers immunity, because he edited out content that was clearly educational and clearly not "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable" under the definition of Section 230. Thus he cashiered WMF's Section 230 immunity, in favor of exercising traditional discretionary editorial judgment employed by publishers who thereby assume liability for content.

Now, if someone files a complaint against WMF (say for allowing libelous material to stand), WMF will have a harder time invoking Section 230 immunity since Jimbo has set a clear precedent of exercising discretionary editorial oversight when it pleased him to do so, in a case where Section 230 clearly does not grant him immunity from liability for editorial intervention on behalf of the interests of WMF.

[GlassBeadGame]

Oh, to be a pseudonym.

I know I make it look easy.

Those good old days, back when I was a pseudonym, when the mods didn't shit on me.

Do you want me to stop posting here?

Yes, I certainly did value your posting then and that was hardly an isolated incident of a good post by you. I didn't even always so openly acknowledge your good posts but I believe there were many.

In recent months you seem to playing to the on-wiki audience, pandering and generally acting like a wiki-careerist butt-head. The worst was your announcing that you intended to lead a new improved Review during your ArbCom run. That was something of a low point. Fortunately nobody followed you. What I would like now is for you ratchet down the Wikipedian nonsense and find your way back to making valuable contributions here.

[One]

Oh, to be a pseudonym.

I know I make it look easy.

Those good old days, back when I was a pseudonym, when the mods didn't shit on me.

Do you want me to stop posting here?

Yes, I certainly did value your posting then and that was hardly an isolated incident of a good post by you. I didn't even always so openly acknowledge your good posts but I believe there were many.

In recent months you seem to playing to the on-wiki audience, pandering and generally acting like a wiki-careerist butt-head. The worst was your announcing that you intended to lead a new improved Review during your ArbCom run. That was something of a low point. Fortunately nobody followed you. What I would like now is for you ratchet down the Wikipedian nonsense and find your way back to making valuable contributions here.

I don't think my posting has changed. Maybe it has and I'm not aware of it. Maybe complimenting the new DICK award scores me points in the on-wiki audience. I dunno.

But I dislike being chastised for posts when Victim Joseph and umpteen cranks have free reign--and they certainly don't have to bear derisive comments about their real-world identities from pseudonymous mods.

If this doesn't stop, I won't post here anymore--even though there is still no alternative to this pseudonym-worshiping site with the temperamental owner. I've too damn much to do anyway.

This post has been edited by One: Tue 10th February 2009, 12:58am

[Milton Roe]

Sorry. Section 230 is not that fragile.

IMHO, it hasn't been tested properly yet. I want a case where it's clearly argued before the Supreme Court that in fact sec. 230, as written and historically interpretted, completely immunizes all internet publishing from all the restraints put on publishing in other media, except copyright. Is that what was really intended, and can the law be pushed that far, in light of the very traditional restraints on the 1st Ammendment in areas of defamation and advertising (commercial speech)? I don't think so. But it hasn't been clearly reviewed, and won't be, until somebody out there on the net crosses the line far more eggregiously than WP has. For one thing, a case would force the court to DEFINE "publishing." Not so easy to do, these days.

It's been reviewed and interpreted by the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 7th (Easterbrook, as I recall this one is a little softer), 9th, 10th, and 11th Circuits using tons of fact patterns, and they all agree on broad immunity. All of them cite Zeran and the academics love it (well, they love the policy--like you and me, they doubt that the act was actually intended to do as much as Zeran says it does). The text of the statute is relatively clear. Hard to see a constitutional problem either. Hell, the civil rights people think it's a great thing for free speech and would probably argue that not interpreting it this way is a violation of First Amendment rights somehow.

It's not fragile.

There was one case that I thought might cause the First Circuit to split with the Ninth though. In this case mentioned here, the judge allowed the suit to proceed under dubious trademark claims and state personality right claims. If they prevail and this is endorsed by the 1st, it would seem to conflict with the 9th, where only Federal intellectual property rights are excepted.

In the last link's post you and GBG mention the Calfornia Fair Housing Council vs. Roommates.com case, which is more interesting than I think you've suggested, at least based on this analysis:

http://www.squidoo.com/cda230

Although Zeran had incredibly held that sec 230 immunises basically any Interactive Computer Service or ICS (read: anybody with a server and access to the internet) from any defamation publishers' liability even when they exercise "publisher's traditional editorial functions--such as deciding whether to publish, withdraw, postpone or alter content, the 9th court begged to differ. They decided that when Roommates.com provided even a dropdown menu which made suggestions about editing of content provided by third parties, that they had gone beyond simply being an ICS and were doing more than "traditional editorial functions" ala Zeran, and had therefore lost CDA 230 immunity, due to having crossed the line into guiding the creation of information content. What if they'd had 5 pillars of editing principles?

Now, yes, there were civil rights issues to make things hot, as Roomates.com had provided dropdown menu options about whether you were looking for roommates of various types (straight, gay, male, female, black, white), and the California Fair Housing Council thus sued them. The court was annoyed and was looking for a reason to decide against Roommate.com, so it essentially decided that their dropdown menus encouraged illegal housing discrimination. Unforunately the court failed to come to grips with the question of why an ICS site that provides editorial direction in a direction the court doesn't like (categorizing people for roommate matching purposes) loses CDA 230 immunity, but should enjoy CDA 230 immunity if they provide editorial direction to categorizes people in more benign ways (such as all computer dating services do).

It's not simply that the one practice is illegal-- so is false advertising, child porn, defamation, soliciting illegal acts, and so on. None is protected by the 1st ammendment, so this is not really a constitutional problem, unless you believe the 1st ammendent is fundamentally somehow upheld if you can defame somebody on an e-newspaper letters page, but not on one that is published in print. I mean, suppose the newspaper comes out both ways with the exact same content-- how does it not violate some kind of equal-protection clause if everybody reads it with impunity on their screen, but the newspaper becomes liable as a publisher the moment one of their subscribers prints it out on a printer? Or does that need to happen at the newspaper's office?

In any case, the idea of the Roommates.com decision is that the ICS loses immunity if it shapes 3rd party content in a way that encourages violation of the law.

It's going to be interesting. This blog looks at a college site which actually encourates people to post juicy campus gossip; it's called JuicyCampus.com:

http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives...housing_co.html

However, the encouragement is only global, not specific. The guy ends up deciding that JuicyCampus.com will be safe in providing an electronic platform to defame anybody in any way, so long as they don't have a dropdown menu which encourages it.



All I can say is: wait till some judges and their families find themselves on the receiving ends of this. The internet comes to all, one way or another, even if you don't look, like Seigenthaler tried not to. It's like war: "So what if they threw a war and nobody came?" Why then, the war comes to you. So also with your internet gossip bio. It just comes later to some, than others.