(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