On 4/23/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/23/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
So someone goes to a community corkboard in an apartment building and writes "John Heybobarebob is gay" on a corkboard message. Then the owner of the apartment building sees the defamatory statement, takes down the message, and stores it in a closet with a bunch of other removed messages. Then a janitor goes into to the closet, takes the message, and creates photocopies which she proceeds to hand out to people.
You think the building owner can be sued?
Yes, I think that the owner of the apartment building might well be liable for the defamation conducted by the janitor. It would be, as I've said, something that a court would decide. Arguably by not disposing of the defamatory material in an appropriate manner he facilitated the subsequent actions of the janitor.
Frankly, I think that's ridiculous.
Now if it was found that one of his janitors had done this *once*, it might not be a big deal and there wouldn't be much of a case. But once this happens, the owner of the apartment building becomes aware that his janitors are not all reliable, it would be reasonable to expect him to take steps to keep sensitive material out of their reach.
I fail to see how defamatory material = sensitive material. We're not talking about secrets here, we're talking about false statements. If the paper contained the person's social security number, I could see you calling it sensitive. The fact that the janitor sees a piece of paper which says "[whoever] is gay" does not in fact affect her ability to defame [whoever] in any way.
I mean, what if the statement was: "The following statement is false: Joe Heybobarebob is gay". And then the janitor copied the statement removing the preface?
What if Wikipedia adds "the following article is false" to the top of the history?
So the second time it happens there would be a stronger case, and each time the owner of the apartment building permits potentially defamatory material to be published by not taking such steps, the case becomes stronger.
I'm sorry, I just don't see it. But I guess your position has been made clear to the point where there's nothing more I can say other than that I disagree.
I'm not sure whether to call this defamation paranoia or the chilling effects of defamation law. But either way, it lends credence to my belief that Wikipedia needs to shed its centralized control and reorganize as a peer-to-peer system, and soon.
Anthony