(Resent with correct subject header)
George writes:
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 pretty clear that Wikileaks's analysis didn't come from a lawyer familiar with CDA caselaw.
--Mike
On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 8:08 AM, Mike Godwin mgodwin@wikimedia.org wrote:
(Resent with correct subject header)
George writes:
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 pretty clear that Wikileaks's analysis didn't come from a lawyer familiar with CDA caselaw.
--Mike
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I think we all may be missing the point here, however. Regardless of the legalities, what possible business could WMF have in keeping Wikinews from publishing stories that are critical of WMF? Is this not about as clear a conflict of interest as you get?
Personally, I don't agree that Virgin Killer is child porn (or porn at all, I see nothing sexual at all about the image), but the fact that I disagree with the story makes me no less disturbed to see it getting quashed. I'm glad for Wikileaks, this type of thing is totally unacceptable, and I'm doubly disappointed to see it from WMF. (Doesn't Wikinews have some type of "not censored" policy? Does that only apply if they don't dare criticize Wikimedia?)
On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 10:22 AM, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
I think we all may be missing the point here, however. Regardless of the legalities, what possible business could WMF have in keeping Wikinews from publishing stories that are critical of WMF? Is this not about as clear a conflict of interest as you get?
Personally, I don't agree that Virgin Killer is child porn (or porn at all, I see nothing sexual at all about the image), but the fact that I disagree with the story makes me no less disturbed to see it getting quashed. I'm glad for Wikileaks, this type of thing is totally unacceptable, and I'm doubly disappointed to see it from WMF. (Doesn't Wikinews have some type of "not censored" policy? Does that only apply if they don't dare criticize Wikimedia?)
I've seen the deleted article. I don't feel comfortable discussing specifics, but there's no doubt in my mind that it was libelous (and on a purely personal note, it was a horribly written article). I would hope that administrators, and by extension, perhaps the Foundation, would act to remove any articles that looked like that.
The Wikimedia Foundation has not censored Wikinews on previous stories that criticized them (the Marsden affair, for example). When I first heard about this, I was shocked; after reading the article itself, I realized why it was deleted (and would have deleted it myself, honestly).
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org