Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: [WL-News] Wikimedia Foundation in danger of losing immunity under the Communications Decency Act - Wikimedia-l

18 May 2008


      Correct me if I'm wrong, but the liability only extends until they are made aware of it, right?
----- Original Message ----
From: Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2008 10:28:43 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: [WL-News] Wikimedia Foundation in danger of losing immunity under the Communications Decency Act
The issue in short form (without taking any sides on it) is that your  
student newspaper, if it writes something illegal, is liable as an  
organization. Wikimedia, however, is protected under the CDA as long  
as it acts as a provider, and not an editor. Wikileaks is implying  
that by pulling the story they are acting as an editor. Mike Godwin is  
saying otherwise. So, that's why this is controversial: because the  
issue at hand is involving the potential liability of the foundation.
-Dan
On May 18, 2008, at 1:23 PM, Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
...
I fail to see why this is so controversial. I serve as an editor for  
a student paper. If the administration sees legal issues with  
something, it is their prerogative to request removal or rewriting  
of stories. The publisher of any major news publication has the same  
power. Without this power, the newspaper would be shut down due to  
lawsuits.
Although some people here scream censorship, I would like to thank  
everyone who worked on removing the libel from our site for their  
vigilance which keeps the doors open and the servers on.
----- Original Message ----
From: Ryan wiki.ral315@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
...
Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2008 8:13:31 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: [WL-News] Wikimedia Foundation in  
danger of losing immunity under the Communications Decency Act
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).
-- 
[[User:Ral315]]
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l