Section 230 and the Livingston lawsuit, Split from "Ron Livingston Lawsuit Discussion" Options Rating

[victim of censorship]

See my thoughts earlier on this subject

....It only takes one from the group. I had an opportunity to speak to a 18 District Judge about 230/ defamation/ and wikipedia. This judges opinion is - the area of the law regarding 230 ligation will "explode" and the nature of 230 will be better defined in the near future. This will mean more common sense in the definition of "service provider" vers "content provider".

The problem is the rosy glasses most hard core Wikpediots have about the absolute right of free-speech. (read the right to say any thing you want, regardless of the truth, regardless of the hurt and damage it causes our society). Absolute right to free speech is not in the constitution, The first amendment does not shield from defamation or those who yell "Fire"in a theater.

The irresponsibility of those who govern Wikipedia, will compel the greater society, as a whole, to act.

This is inevitable.

[One]

I guess law students in Canada aren't familiar with xoxohth? That might be to your credit, or perhaps it's a generational thing. Good for you. Degenerate forum.

I can't imagine it's worse than lawstudents.ca, which consists mostly of people bragging about their LSAT scores while denigrating everybody else's approach to everything. I haven't been there in a while, so I'm not sure if they've finally added a forum where people can post pictures of their penises next to rulers, but that would really save a lot of words.

Anyway, I'll stop now, lest I be the cause of two thread splits in one week.

That sounds about like autoadmit/xoxohth.

I wonder if there's something about the profession that attracts these types...

Anyhow, that suit (which appears to be a flop, like most U.S. defamation suits are), was closely followed by many of my peers. Two female law students had their pictures involuntarily posted for a "T14 Hotties" contest, with predictably degenerate remarks. A Yale Law School professor named a bunch of pseudonymous John Doe defendants who had made these remarks on the forum and a couple who allegedly hosted the pictures. Some of these defendants fought hard for their pseudonymity--most successfully, as I recall. One called "A horse walks into a bar" brazenly revealed his identity and then defended his comments as not defamatory, ridiculing the suit as a shaming expedition. Typical online free speech hash.

This post has been edited by One: Sun 6th December 2009, 12:40am

[victim of censorship]

I don't believe Wikimedia is a defendant....

HOW DO YOU KNOW???

Until a review of the Ron Livingston fillings, its just a chip on the roulette wheel.

Now here is a basic legal discussion on the subject of 230 and if that immunity could be peirced?

Find law ANITA RAMASASTRY

In this article an interesting statement is made....

...And how should the courts deal with the Wikipedia scenario? At least one commentator, Professor Douglas Lichtman at the University of Chicago, takes the view that in some situations, Wikipedia's immunity may not be not total. He postulates that the site could face liability, despite Section 230, if Wikipedia employees or management "knew clearly" that they were distributing defamatory material, and failed to act...

I would guess Ron Livingston may be taking a stab at wikipeidia's section immunity. If it is shown that wikipedits"know clearly" and failed to act, then there immunity would be broken and Wiki would be subject to liability for content as well as rebroadcasted

[One]

HOW DO YOU KNOW???

Until a review of the Ron Livingston fillings, its just a chip on the roulette wheel.

1. Because non-TMZ articles say that the users are defendants, and no articles suggest that WMF is a defendant.
2. It's probably a pretty poor strategy to throw in a spurious claim against Wikipedia (although GBG is right that it could plausibly be a token to ensure WMF's cooperation).
3. Your posts have consistently shown that you don't actually know what section 230 immunity is, let alone how it might be "peirced."
4. Douglas Lichtman has not taught at the University of Chicago for some time, which gives you an idea about the age of this analysis. At any rate, it would be difficult to prove that the foundation knew and did not act--and I actually think it would be unlikely. The office can be zealous when it needs to be.

[Kelly Martin]

There's no way that this suit would pierce Wikimedia's §230 immunity. Wikimedia, if they don't voluntarily cough up the checkuser data, which they probably will anyway, would simply end up the target of discovery against a nonparty. I haven't looked to see whether this is proceeding under federal or state rules, but virtually every judicial system has a process for filing a suit against parties whose names are unknown. In most states, it's done by filing against Doe defendants; in federal procedure it can also be done using a special rule that authorizes prefiling discovery under certain conditions. (It's been too long since I looked at this stuff to cite rule numbers or statutes, and I'm too lazy to find my copy of the FRCP.)

There is no legal benefit in naming Wikimedia as a defendant, especially as doing so would necessitate making an expensive challenge to §230 which is almost certain to fail. In any case Wikimedia doesn't have deep pockets anyway and, as a charity, would likely be a sympathetic defendant, which is exactly not what you want when you're trying a case like this.

[Random832]

At risk of disgracing law students everywhere...the article says that the lawsuit's been filed. How is that possible if he's sticking with user defendant(s) and doesn't know who those are?

(In my defense, I don't take civil procedure until next semester.)

Fictitious defendants...
An odd name - i've always just heard it called a John Doe lawsuit / John Doe defendant.
And an even crappier WP article than is par for legal subjects.

This post has been edited by Random832: Sun 6th December 2009, 3:26am

[j.delanoy]

3. 230 will be changed/ or pierced, in time and the first defamation lawsuit against wikipedia to win will mark the end of the project. Only one needs to win, and considering the irresponsible wiki leet and the lack of governance, is WILL HAPPEN.

No matter how much you hate Wikipedia, you DO NOT want WP to be taken down by a defamation suit over an issue like this one.

The way I understand it, if Wikipedia were taken down in spite of §230, the precedent would totally destroy the internet as we know it. If you could get away with suing the WMF in this case, why would you stop there? The ISP that this company has should not allow an organization with this sort of pathetic oversight to access the internet at all, and goddammit that ISP has a RESPONSIBILITY to make very sure that he does not libel people!!!!

See where this is going?

I am not saying that the WMF should not take more action to stop this sort of thing from happening. I am saying that some things can have incredibly widespread effects, and before advocating for anything, you should consider what would result.

Be aware that I am not a lawyer, nor am I studying to be one, so I may know even less of how law works than I think I do.... But based on my (very limited) understanding of how §230 works, I do think that a successful suit of the WMF over something like this would, in the end, result in the internet becoming almost completely worthless as a communication tool in any sense of the term.

EDIT: to clarify that I meant a defamation case of this sort. I am under no illusions that the continued existence of the WMF is essential to the continuity of the internets

[GlassBeadGame]

Be aware that I am not a lawyer, nor am I studying to be one, so I may know even less of how law works than I think I do.... But based on my (very limited) understanding of how §230 works, I do think that a successful suit of the WMF over something like this would, in the end, result in the internet becoming almost completely worthless as a communication tool in any sense of the term.

Destroying the internet as we know doesn't sound all bad. Still it is possible that WMF could be found to not be entitled to Sec 230 immunity without that immunity being lost by ISPs and websites that provide a means of allowing other to post their content that is not part of a larger single editorial project such as an "encyclopedia." Thus Geo-Cities style sites, Craig's List and the sites that allows the opinions of people replying to a blog would not have liability for allowing others to post. Also keep in mind that if the world was reduced to rocks, stones and typeset newspapers it would be no skin off VoC nose and on some days I would agree with him.

[taiwopanfob]

No matter how much you hate Wikipedia, you DO NOT want WP to be taken down by a defamation suit over an issue like this one.

Sure we do! Wikipedia (and many other sites) is flat out abusing s.230's original intent. Recall the purpose of the immunity was to encourage websites to police their servers and remove offensive material in a timely manner. Unfortunately, the law is written "you have immunity", when it should have been written like "immunity is for those who assume basic editorial responsibilities, as defined by [...]."

Hence, Wikipedia and its "skull-dancing" editors who relish to fuck with other people's lives. "Oh, so sorry. Your problem though, not ours: we are immune! HAR HAR HAR!"

I do think that a successful suit of the WMF over something like this would, in the end, result in the internet becoming almost completely worthless as a communication tool in any sense of the term.

Don't be silly. Most any website will remove libelous or other offensive material, on request and more or less instantly. The huge exception to this is Wikipedia. People have tried to instill some common sense, but the hoards of idiot editors who get to vote on policy appear to enjoy the whimpering cries from BLP victims.

The WMF needs to be sued, as it is likely the only remaining hope for policy change for the better.

[j.delanoy]

Sure we do! Wikipedia (and many other sites) is flat out abusing s.230's original intent. Recall the purpose of the immunity was to encourage websites to police their servers and remove offensive material in a timely manner. Unfortunately, the law is written "you have immunity", when it should have been written like "immunity is for those who assume basic editorial responsibilities, as defined by [...]."

Hence, Wikipedia and its "skull-dancing" editors who relish to fuck with other people's lives. "Oh, so sorry. Your problem though, not ours: we are immune! HAR HAR HAR!"

There are people on Wikipedia who do care about other people's lives. And there are tools that are (supposed to be) able to deal with issues like this. Flagged revisions, in particular, would have prevented the present case from happening at all. This sort of thing is specifically what they are designed for. I had thought that they (FR) were supposed to be enabled what, a few months ago now? Why they haven't been, I don't know, nor do I know who to yell at. Maybe the bad publicity from this will finally get people to move. More likely, nothing will happen, as Wikipedia is (nominally) still protected legally in this case. People here (on WR) may be right that it will take an actual lawsuit to get <name(s) of whoever is/are in charge of rolling out FR>'s rear in gear. In the meantime though, to characterize everyone on the entire site as actively flipping the bird to marginally notable people while waving a copy of Sec. 230 is not accurate.

[Kelly Martin]

Flagged revisions, in particular, would have prevented the present case from happening at all. This sort of thing is specifically what they are designed for. I had thought that they (FR) were supposed to be enabled what, a few months ago now? Why they haven't been, I don't know, nor do I know who to yell at.

The name of the party you wish to yell at is:

Jimmy Donal Wales

Start yelling.

[EricBarbour]

No matter how much you hate Wikipedia, you DO NOT want WP to be taken down by a defamation suit over an issue like this one.
The way I understand it, if Wikipedia were taken down in spite of §230, the precedent would totally destroy the internet as we know it.

I would love to see that precedent, if it would end the juvenile soap-opera attached to the "encyclopedia". The actual content would survive, since scores of unrelated webservers have been mirroring it.

Besides, I suspect that it is only a matter of time before the internet becomes just another telecom medium, subject to taxation, regulation and censorship.
It has escaped this fate by a combination of lobbying in Washington, other grassroots work to prevent the passage of regulatory laws, and sheer luck.

Have you seen the current push by the FCC to eliminate the American switched telephone
network, and eventually force all telecom traffic into IP-address space?

It has analysts up in arms, because it would be costly as hell; and a part of this would be the regulation of TCP/IP service, just as the switched telephone network is regulated. The thinking goes: if VoIP is regulated like regular phone service, it will also have to be forced to handle E911, and forced to meet CALEA requirements for wiretaps (which is quite difficult to do with the IP system today). The squawking over net neutrality is just the beginning.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Mon 7th December 2009, 12:21am

[MZMcBride]

Flagged revisions, in particular, would have prevented the present case from happening at all. This sort of thing is specifically what they are designed for. I had thought that they (FR) were supposed to be enabled what, a few months ago now? Why they haven't been, I don't know, nor do I know who to yell at.

The name of the party you wish to yell at is:

Jimmy Donal Wales

Start yelling.

I honestly don't believe that the hold-up is Jimmy and I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that it is. I firmly blame the Wikimedia Foundation for the delays here (of which Jimmy is not involved in in any real capacity).

From my view, it seems to be a mixture of not wanting to implement Flagged revisions for fear of further bad publicity ("Wikipedia shuts its doors to further contributors," "Wikipedia no longer the free encyclopedia anyone can edit," etc.) and a very limited tech staff (the Wikimedia Foundation budget seems to be largely wasted on things not related to tech, shockingly).

[Doc glasgow]

(the Wikimedia Foundation budget seems to be largely wasted on things not related to tech, shockingly).

And whom do I yell at for that?

[victim of censorship]

Destroying the internet as we know doesn't sound all bad. Still it is possible that WMF could be found to not be entitled to Sec 230 immunity without that immunity being lost by ISPs and websites that provide a means of allowing other to post their content that is not part of a larger single editorial project such as an "encyclopedia." Thus Geo-Cities style sites, Craig's List and the sites that allows the opinions of people replying to a blog would not have liability for allowing others to post. Also keep in mind that if the world was reduced to rocks, stones and typeset newspapers it would be no skin off VoC nose and on some days I would agree with him.

Not destroy the internet, to weed out those on the internet who don't respect the concept of "responsibility". Wikipedia as shown to lack responsible governance. Now Wiki is reaping what it has created. Bear in mind the first amendment does not allow defamation and yelling fire in theaters. The print media has to abide by those rules, and since Wikipedia is, for all tents and purposes, is a content provider. Wikipedia should be force to abide by the rules of defamation and first amendment as all other media has too. Wiki should follow the same rules as the newspapers, radio and tv.

[Sarcasticidealist]

No matter how much you hate Wikipedia, you DO NOT want WP to be taken down by a defamation suit over an issue like this one.
The way I understand it, if Wikipedia were taken down in spite of §230, the precedent would totally destroy the internet as we know it.

I would like the WMF to eventually be legally accountable for the contents of Wikipedia, at least insofar as it's expected to take reasonable measures to prevent damage to third parties. But I would rather see the WMF given some time to implement those reasonable measures before s.230 ceases to apply (of course, in some respects s.230 acts as a disincentive for the WMF to take those measures). But the nice thing about the common law is that it's adaptable: no court is going to make a ruling that would totally destroy the internet as we know it. If some court made some ruling that, if broadly applied, would have that effect, then it would either be overturned or attempts to apply it more widely would be distinguished on some basis in order to prevent the internet from being destroyed. The law is an ass, but it's not the full monty.

(the Wikimedia Foundation budget seems to be largely wasted on things not related to tech, shockingly).

And whom do I yell at for that?

As GBG says above, if the WMF is going to discharge its responsibilities (the moral ones, that is, since it doesn't seem to have much in the way of legal ones) it's going to need a beefed up infrastructure. I'm all for non-tech spending in principle.

[Cedric]

(the Wikimedia Foundation budget seems to be largely wasted on things not related to tech, shockingly).

And whom do I yell at for that?

Hmmmm. How about

Jimmy Donal Wales

[One]

Wow. What a loopy thread.

I hate to say something so unpopular, but it deserves saying: Wikipedia is not the most irresponsible site on the internet. (Calling this "faint praise" would be an understatement, however.)

Matter of fact, operators a lot less responsive than this WMF outfit have gotten Sec. 230 immunity with flying colors. I agree that publisher immunity it can, should, and will be chipped away, but it will be done with sites which are actively malicious before it happens to Wikipedia. I agree that it's an ill-conceived law, should be rewritten, etc., but if you're hoping for a case to hold Wikipedia liable for user-written content in the United States--well, Santa doesn't exist, my friend.

[Sarcasticidealist]

Wikipedia is not the most irresponsible site on the internet.

Oh, anybody who disputes that is nuts. It's certainly got the highest ratio of prominence to editorial responsibility, though; I have a hard time thinking of another site that comes close.

[A Horse With No Name]

There are people on Wikipedia who do care about other people's lives.

Oh? Some quotes about caring about "other people's lives":

"I have written Tiscali, his ISP, about the libelous edits he made to Jimbo's userspace, but I don't know if they will do anything." J.delanoy, 02:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

"J.delanoy, when you speak of "libelous edits" and "blatant libel" are you speaking of oversighted edits, because I haven't seen anything that appears libellous, merely insulting. Can you clarify?" Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

"Don't know, I can't remember. In my email I said that there was libel, but I don't remember exactly what (or if) it was." J.delanoy 04:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, kiddo -- this will look great in the upcoming book!

I hate to say something so unpopular, but it deserves saying: Wikipedia is not the most irresponsible site on the internet. (Calling this "faint praise" would be an understatement, however.)

This will, too.

Damn...the f**king book is writing itself.