On 4/22/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
Also, the phrasing "no longer publishing it" implies that Wikimedia at one time *did* publish it. But that's most likely not true.
I factually disagree with that. If the material was there for even a few minutes it was published by Wikimedia, but that alone does not determine the case. What happened when Wikimedia became aware that the material was there is far more important.
Ec
You have a right to your opinion. But I think it's hard to justify that position with the CDA: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."
Note that I'm not saying the CDA can necessarily be used as a defense by Wikitruth. Going back to your quote: "It would probably depend on whether Wikimedia could simultaneously argue that (a) deleting material -- where admins could still access it -- qualified as no longer publishing it and (b) Wikimedia is not responsible for the actions of admins who obtain that material." I would say the argument is a) they aren't a publisher, but merely provide an interactive computer service.
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]].
Anthony