On 4/22/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/22/06, Anthony DiPierro
<wikilegal(a)inbox.org> wrote:
The Prodigy case is irrelevant, because the CDA was passed after that
case. In fact, section 230 of the CDA was created in large part as a
response to the Prodigy case. See [[Section 230 of the Communications
Decency Act]].
Well, almost. The common law elements of the Prodigy case stand if
the elements of the statutory exemption of CDA 230 are not satisfied.
It is *probably* the case that Wikipedia can *sometimes* satisfy CDA
230, but not always. If someone is trusted with access to sensitive
information in order to facilitate the smooth running of Wikipedia and
then proceeds to publish that information, then a plaintiff, having
notified Wikipedia of defamation and then seen the defamation
published via a leak by a Wikipedia administrator to WikiTruth
*might* argue that Wikipedia did not take all reasonable steps to
limit damage, and a court might accept this as a prima facie case for
third party liability.
Frankly, I just don't see it, but maybe I don't know what you mean by
"sensitive information". You also don't mention what Wikipedia would
be sued for. Negligence? If so, I don't see where the duty of care
is.
This is hypothetical, but I think it demonstrates that
Wikitruth, if
its purported evidence of Wikipedia admin collusion is correct,
represents a fairly serious problem for Wikipedia.
I'm not willing to say that there isn't a serious problem. In fact,
if Wikitruth is publishing information which violates someone's right
to privacy, *that* might be a problem. But in my opinion anything
that violates someone's right to privacy shouldn't be available to
admins in the first place.
Anthony