Anthony DiPierro wrote:
From what I can gather, neither the article nor these comments were
libellous (but the fact that I don't have a copy of the article limits my ability to speak with regard to it). Since you think these comments are "more libellous" than what was in the article, maybe Siegenthaler should write another article blasting Wikipedia and whinging about how he isn't able to sue BJörn or anyone else (he leave out the paragraph on anonymity this time). And then Jimbo can go on CNN and say that he is wiping, this post and all the others that contain the allegedly libellous statement, from the archive website.
We don't know what Seigenthaler would have done with the information if he had been able to track down the writer. His promary complaint was the incredibly high hurdles he would have had to jump in order to find out. We have no basis to speculate about what he would have done had he succeeded in identifying his "biographer."
Frankly, I really don't get it. Siegenthaler is supposedly a defender of free speech rights. Doesn't he realize that making ISPs liable for content spoken by others would stifle free speech? Doesn't he agree that the ability to speak anonymously is absolutely critical to free speech?
I'm not an expert in US constitutional law; it's not my country. Sometimes it does happen though that one right can interferes with others. Reconciling those rights may lead to limitations on one or the other. I don't think that it would be fair to conclude that free speech condones defamation. Whether actual defamation could be proven cannot be established unless the person has the right to face his accuser.
What does Siegenthaler want? Does he want Wikipedia to stop allowing volunteer contributors? Does he want Congress to remove the protections given to ISPs for merely carrying content produced by others? Does he want to take away the ability of Internet speakers to be anonymous? Does he want to start licensing or bonding people who produce content to distribute over the Internet?
Maybe he just wants more awareness around the problem, which certainly more complex than Wikipedia's involvement in the issue.
Ec