from the wikileaks mailing list
regards
mark
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Wikileaks Press Release press@wikileaks.org Date: Sat, May 17, 2008 at 2:18 PM Subject: [WL-News] Wikimedia Foundation in danger of losing immunity under the Communications Decency Act To: newsmarkie@gmail.com Cc: Wikileaks News Releases news@lists.sunshinepress.org
Wikileaks Press Release Sat May 17 14:09:38 GMT 2008
Wikileaks has revealed that the Wikimedia Foundation Board (which legally controls Wikipedia.org and Wikinews.org) has killed off a Wikinews report into the Barabara Bauer vs. Wikimedia Foundation case.
Wikinews.org is a collaborative general news site that often produces quality original reportage and is meant to be editorially independent from the WMF.
The WMF board also suppressed, prior to publication, a Wikinews investigation into child and other pornography on Wikipedia, which was subsequently and independently covered by Valley Wag and other media outlets this week.
The US Communications Deceny Act (CDA) section 230 grants providers of internet services (such as the Wikipedia and Wikinews) immunity from legal action related to their user generated content provided they do not exercise pre-publication control.
In deleting articles articles unfavourable to the WMF prior to publication, Wikileaks states that the WMF control of Wikinews not only appears to lack journalistic integrity but that "The Wikimedia Foundation may have set a dangerous precedent that could see it lose its CDA section 230 immunity."
The EFF and Sheppard Mullin are using CDA section 230 as the primary defense of the WMF in the Barbara Bauer defamation case.
WikiLeaks is an international union of organizations and individuals and is unrelated to the WMF.
Links:
* http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Wikinews_suppressed_article_on_Barbara_Bauer_vs._W... * http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Wikinews_suppressed_Wikipedia_pornography_investig... * EFF and Sheppard Mullin Defend Wikipedia in Defamation Case http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2008/05/02 _______________________________________________ News mailing list News@lists.sunshinepress.org https://lists.wikileaks.org/mailman/listinfo/news http://wikileaks.be/wiki/Contact
Hmm. I don't know that it's possible to exercise pre-publication control when the article is live to the public the moment it's created...
POST-publication control, such as removing libelous or offensive or questionable content, has been held to be protected under CDA and other legal theories.
I think WikiLeaks are confused.
It's certainly possible (and I'm not saying this is what happened because I have absolutely no idea) that the articles were being developed by someone who interviewed people who work for the Foundation, and that person was forbidden to submit the articles, or told to remove some things.
On 18/05/2008, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm. I don't know that it's possible to exercise pre-publication control when the article is live to the public the moment it's created...
POST-publication control, such as removing libelous or offensive or questionable content, has been held to be protected under CDA and other legal theories.
I think WikiLeaks are confused.
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hello,
On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 1:29 PM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
It's certainly possible (and I'm not saying this is what happened because I have absolutely no idea) that the articles were being developed by someone who interviewed people who work for the Foundation, and that person was forbidden to submit the articles, or told to remove some things.
In which case, it would be self-censorship, not censorship nor editorial control by the foundation.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org