On 5/31/07, Stan Shebs <stanshebs(a)earthlink.net> wrote:
Joe Szilagyi wrote:
I sort of think that in any sane jurisdiction you
CAN'T. Now if I said,
"Peter Griffin, of 122 Main Street, Quahog, RI beats his kids..." it
would
be libel. But if Peter hides as UberWiki747, and
can't be proven it's
Peter... its not libel. Peter would have to disclose he was UberWiki,
no?
Exactly - those guys obsess over the real identities of editors, and are
always looking for new and different ways to acquire them; this message
is just another of their fishing expeditions.
Er, no. I was making the specific point that you can't libel a fellow named
UberWiki747 and have it legally processed, anymore than you can libel
"SlimVirgin". Stan Shebs and Joe Szilagyi (assuming those are our real
names) can, however, be libeled. I can't think of a single case where an
anonymous alias was ever able to prosecute something like that in the United
States but feel free to correct that with {{fact}} if I'm wrong. The point
is that anyone named "GenericEditor112" saying that someone on Wikipedia
Review, or ED, or anywhere else was libeled on the given website, is full of
baloney. It may be libel, *IF* the person's real name and identity was
libeled. If it's not really them, it's not libel.
As for it being a fishing expedition, it wasn't. They clarified the factual
law that applies to a website hosted in the United States, which is covered
by the same Section 230 protections that theoretically apply to Wikipedia.
Saying something is libel doesn't make it libel.
Regards,
Joe
http://www.joeszilagyi.com