Michael Snow wrote:
The law in some states, notably California, protects a certain amount of free speech on some private property, specifically the ability to petition or solicit individuals in shopping centers that are open to the general public. Maybe this is what gave Chris the idea that Wikipedia is a public forum. But even if this principle applied to speech on Wikipedia, I highly doubt it would cover anything resembling hate-speech.
This brings up a question that I'd like answered: Given that Wikipedia is *not* a public forum, can it or its owner be sued for libel?
What happens, for example, if an anonymous user with a determined attitude insists on posting something claiming that Michael Moore is a pedophile? Since the anonymous user's identity can't be traced, Moore's only recourse would be to sue the MediaWiki foundation. And even if the user is banned, he could come back forever and keep posting the claim on different articles under different sock-puppet IDs.
Doesn't this put Wikipedia in the difficult position of being legally responsible for behavior that it doesn't have the power to control?