What does this decision mean in simple English?
Rupert
Am 17.06.2014 09:08 schrieb "Martijn Hoekstra"
<martijnhoekstra(a)gmail.com>om>:
On Jun 17, 2014 3:55 AM, "Kevin Godfrey"
<kevin.darklight(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> On 17 Jun 2014, at 4:17 am, edward <edward(a)logicmuseum.com> wrote:
>
>> On 16/06/2014 21:07, Newyorkbrad wrote:
>> In its decision, the Sixth Circuit takes a broad view of Section 230
and
>> holds that Section 230 protection is not
lost even where the website
>> operator solicited contributors to post unsourced and uncorroborated
"dirt"
>> about anyone they pleased, and even
where the website operator
selected
which contributions would be published.
Isn't that rather a bad thing? What was the rationale behind its view?
Would this allow the WMF to exercise a degree of editorial control over
the
projects without jeopardizing their S230 immunity? I'm specifically
thinking of BLPs.
Kevin
Don't they already do that? I see office actions on rare occasions.
--Martijn
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>