<P><BR><BR>----- Original Message ----- <BR>From: Sheldon Rampton <SHELDON.RAMPTON@VERIZON.NET><BR>Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 09:58:20 -0500 <BR>To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org <BR>Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: WHEELER's anti-Semitism <BR><BR>> Michael Snow wrote: <BR>> <BR>> >The law in some states, notably California, protects a certain amount of <BR>> >free speech on some private property, specifically the ability to <BR>> >petition or solicit individuals in shopping centers that are open to the <BR>> >general public. Maybe this is what gave Chris the idea that Wikipedia is <BR>> >a public forum. But even if this principle applied to speech on <BR>> >Wikipedia, I highly doubt it would cover anything resembling hate-speech. <BR>> <BR>> This brings up a question that I'd like answered: Given that <BR>> Wikipedia is *not* a public forum, can it or its owner be sued for <BR>> libel? </P>
<P>Why is it (for speech reasons) NOT a public forum? It is not a membership club, per se, anyone can post on it, and anyone can read it.</P>
<P>> What happens, for example, if an anonymous user with a determined <BR>> attitude insists on posting something claiming that Michael Moore is <BR>> a pedophile? Since the anonymous user's identity can't be traced, <BR>> Moore's only recourse would be to sue the MediaWiki foundation. And <BR>> even if the user is banned, he could come back forever and keep <BR>> posting the claim on different articles under different sock-puppet <BR>> IDs. </P>
<P>Michael Moore is a public person, and as such, has to show malice and/or knowing posting of a lie in order to successfully sue. Now you may be able to prove both against the anon, but it would be perceived as an incredible attack on free speech to attack the forum. If a TV station takes a newsreel, and someone in the crowd can be heard to say "Michael Moore is a pedophile" or there were a sign to that effect, could Moore sue the TV station if they did not blot out the sign or blip the speech? Talk about prior censorship.</P>
<P><BR>> Doesn't this put Wikipedia in the difficult position of being legally <BR>> responsible for behavior that it doesn't have the power to control? </P>
<P>Potentially anything is possible, if people are in the mood to sue. IANAL, but I think this is still a wide-open question. Perhaps the best comparison would be the position of ISPs in having webmasters posting copyvio or child porn on their servers. It generally appears that the ISPs are NOT liable if they don't know the material is there, but may be if they fail to remove it or block the accounts on credible notice by a responsible authority (such as legal service) that it is there. It seems that situation is more analogous to Wikipedia. How likely is it that obvious libel will sit on Wiki very long?</P>
<P>--C</P><BR>
--
<p>___________________________________________________________<br>Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com<br>
<a href="http://mail01.mail.com/scripts/payment/adtracking.cgi?bannercode=adsfreejump01" target="_blank">http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup</a></p>