•Judge puts defamation lawsuit against Wikipedia to the sword
Ars Technica, MA -Aug 13, 2008
By John Timmer | Published: August 13, 2008 - 08:00PM CT Although its name sounds positively Orwellian, the Communications Decency Act contains provisions ...

View the article

Here is a lot more about the power of the good samaritan clause of sec 230 which protects Internet "interactive computer services". Turns out there have been many tests of this, and no matter how much the providers screws up the editing of material, if they didn't actually generate it, they're not responsible for it editorially. Editing without being editorially reponsible. Because it's the internet.

It's that amazing?

http://www.cybertelecom.org/CDA/samaritan2.htm

You have to read it to believe it. I think some judges are going to have to see themselves and some of their private info on the internet, before the pendulum swings the other way.

This has already been thought of.

"The House of Representatives unanimously passed legislation on July 10, 2007, which protects law enforcement officers, undercover agents, informants and witnesses in a criminal investigation or prosecution from having their personal information posted on the internet."

I believe there is a similar law for judges.

Yes, but this doesn't protect them. It's sort of like suing against defamation. Suing enshrines the defamation, and makes it permanent, as defamation, but still, it is permanent, and even more famous.

Likewise, if an undercover officer/agent (or their agency) presses charges, it is a tacit admission that the information was correct. And anything on the internet can be sucked down and re-published elsewhere, so the cat's out of the bag.

Anyways, the part they hate the most is being revealed to other-country agencies. Being revealed to their own nationals they don't care much about. They can just deny-deny-deny, to use Durova's famous recommendation on nabble.

By the way, if that law was enforceable, then why isn't Brandt in jail, or fined, or whatever. Isn't he the big spook "out"-er?

-- as for the "laws for judges".... most judges are too old to be materially affected by the internet, either in the chat-board sense, or the reputational sense. Give it time. Pretty soon you'll find some judge with phone sex chats being republished from sites in the Maldives, Vanuaatu, and Nepal, or judges with compromising pictures, or "Jimbo-style" girlfriend chats. At that time, you'll see judges giving a damn about such things. For now it's the web-wild-west and "Defamation alley"

I think there is a difference; an internet provider is not liable even if they fail to remove the content when a complaint is received: "A breached promise to remove content does not remove the immunity." I don't believe there would be a similar immunity if a provider failed to remove the personal information about a police officer.

My point didn't address police officers (unless they were undercover - in which case yes). I meant people who either diddle in internet-defamation (intel / undercover) or who make common-law, precedent-setting rulings on defamation law (judges). My point was that intel cannot press charges for having been outed, first because it is an admission, and worsens the damage. Judges won't start treating this with more seriousness until a new generation gets into the robes, and/or until one of them is humiliated online in a serious manner - with damaging evidence of someone who "got into" their robes, thereby embarassing them and giving them fresh eyes, and "new appreciation for" the topic.

When it happens to one judge all the other judges will get nervous. Or realize they aren't untouchable, even if they have friends who are great cyber-investigators.

Without researching the case law on this, I would assume that judges, police, etc, anyone who has this protection, would be able to request a sealed hearing with in camera review of documents, and a strong protective order against release and republication of the information.

Yes, but once something is out, it's out. It can be re-pub'd on a site from China, Kathmandu, Port au Prince and Santiago and moved around, and sitting on some CD where it can't be erased and republished. That's the beauty of the internet. These guys just haven't had it affect them yet, and/or they are too old to have seen it happen to anyone they know.

It's not a question of case-law, it's a question of logistics. Judges aren't used to things they can't control, and things like-this that affect them. It's just a matter of time before something like this does, is all I'm saying.

I have some fairly provocative dirt on a state court of appeals judge, but he doesn't have a Wikipedia article, and I wouldn't desire to "out" this unpublished information about him, anyway.