(Cross-posted from my En-wiki talkpage)
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Sixth_Circuit has issued its decision today in *Jones v. Dirty World Entertainment Recordings LLC*. This is a well-known dispute involving application of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act in the context of a website ("www.TheDirty.com") whose goals and contents are deplorable. The court's decision can be found here http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/14a0125p-06.pdf. A blog post (Eugene Volokh) summarizing the decision can be found here http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/06/16/thedirty-com-not-liable-for-defamatory-posts-on-the-site .
In its decision, the Sixth Circuit takes a broad view of Section 230 and holds that Section 230 protection is not lost even where the website operator solicited contributors to post unsourced and uncorroborated "dirt" about anyone they pleased, and even where the website operator selected which contributions would be published.
The protection of Section 230 enables websites such as Wikipedia to operate without fear that the Foundation will be subject to suit anytime someone, such as a BLP subject, disagrees with the content of an article. It is a truism that Freedom of Speech under the First Amendment and statues like Section 230 protects speech we do not care for as well as speech whose value we appreciate.
That being said, the decision is a reminder that those of us who care about how Wikipedia treats the subject of BLP articles must remain vigilant in keeping such articles free of defamatory, unsourced negative, unduly weighted, and privacy-invading content, as well as in using good judgment regarding which living persons should be the subject of articles at all. At least in the United States, for better or worse, the law will do little to protect the people we write about in our encyclopedia. Treating them fairly and responsible is therefore, all the more clearly, our collective, non-delegable editorial responsibility.
Newyorkbrad
On 16/06/2014 21:07, Newyorkbrad wrote:
In its decision, the Sixth Circuit takes a broad view of Section 230 and holds that Section 230 protection is not lost even where the website operator solicited contributors to post unsourced and uncorroborated "dirt" about anyone they pleased, and even where the website operator selected which contributions would be published.
Isn't that rather a bad thing? What was the rationale behind its view?
It's certainly a very troubling outcome given the facts of the case, which I was reporting rather than endorsing. The appeals court relied partly on the breadth of the statute enacted by Congress, and partly on the difficulty of drawing lines reflecting which types of conduct by a site-owner would or would not be protected if the statute were construed more narrowly.
The court's decision, and particularly the key portions of it quoted on the Volokh blog, are reasonably accessible to non-lawyers, so everyone interested can certainly review them rather than rely on my summary.
Incidentally, another appeals court decision issued today may also be of interest. Here is Judge Posner writing for the Seventh Circuit on the copyright status of Sherlock Holmes pastiches: http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y20...
Newyorkbrad
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 4:17 PM, edward edward@logicmuseum.com wrote:
On 16/06/2014 21:07, Newyorkbrad wrote:
In its decision, the Sixth Circuit takes a broad view of Section 230 and holds that Section 230 protection is not lost even where the website operator solicited contributors to post unsourced and uncorroborated "dirt" about anyone they pleased, and even where the website operator selected which contributions would be published.
Isn't that rather a bad thing? What was the rationale behind its view?
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 17 Jun 2014, at 4:17 am, edward edward@logicmuseum.com wrote:
On 16/06/2014 21:07, Newyorkbrad wrote: In its decision, the Sixth Circuit takes a broad view of Section 230 and holds that Section 230 protection is not lost even where the website operator solicited contributors to post unsourced and uncorroborated "dirt" about anyone they pleased, and even where the website operator selected which contributions would be published.
Isn't that rather a bad thing? What was the rationale behind its view?
Would this allow the WMF to exercise a degree of editorial control over the projects without jeopardizing their S230 immunity? I'm specifically thinking of BLPs.
Kevin
On Jun 17, 2014 3:55 AM, "Kevin Godfrey" kevin.darklight@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 Jun 2014, at 4:17 am, edward edward@logicmuseum.com wrote:
On 16/06/2014 21:07, Newyorkbrad wrote: In its decision, the Sixth Circuit takes a broad view of Section 230
and
holds that Section 230 protection is not lost even where the website operator solicited contributors to post unsourced and uncorroborated
"dirt"
about anyone they pleased, and even where the website operator selected which contributions would be published.
Isn't that rather a bad thing? What was the rationale behind its view?
Would this allow the WMF to exercise a degree of editorial control over
the projects without jeopardizing their S230 immunity? I'm specifically thinking of BLPs.
Kevin
Don't they already do that? I see office actions on rare occasions.
--Martijn
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
What does this decision mean in simple English?
Rupert Am 17.06.2014 09:08 schrieb "Martijn Hoekstra" martijnhoekstra@gmail.com:
On Jun 17, 2014 3:55 AM, "Kevin Godfrey" kevin.darklight@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 Jun 2014, at 4:17 am, edward edward@logicmuseum.com wrote:
On 16/06/2014 21:07, Newyorkbrad wrote: In its decision, the Sixth Circuit takes a broad view of Section 230
and
holds that Section 230 protection is not lost even where the website operator solicited contributors to post unsourced and uncorroborated
"dirt"
about anyone they pleased, and even where the website operator
selected
which contributions would be published.
Isn't that rather a bad thing? What was the rationale behind its view?
Would this allow the WMF to exercise a degree of editorial control over
the projects without jeopardizing their S230 immunity? I'm specifically thinking of BLPs.
Kevin
Don't they already do that? I see office actions on rare occasions.
--Martijn
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org