[Foundation-l] Wikinews - not so much a state of the wiki

[Anthony]

On Dec 4, 2007 3:14 PM, Brian McNeil <brian.mcneil at wikinewsie.org> wrote:
> Anthony wrote:
>
> >The fact that it is a massive collaboration system likely is
> >irrelevant.  Section 230 of the CDA provides immunity to both a
> >"provider or user of an interactive computer service".  It has been
> >said that this immunity is essentially applicable to anyone who
> >communicates over the Internet, so long as the information is
> >"provided by another information content provider".
>
> That's all well and good for the Foundation.
>
> I'm not certain that editorial liability is the same thing as what you're
> talking about. Newspaper editors are responsible for what they accept and
> publish from their reporters. I am sure some areas would hold to that same
> principle with an online news source with an editorial team approving what
> was being picked up and listed in Google News. I think [[w:Ian Hislop]]
> would agree with me, at least were someone from the UK found to have pushed
> the button to publish libel about a UK figure.
>
My comments were strictly limited to the US, which Robert and Thomas
both mentioned in response to my question of jurisdiction.  In fact,
outside of California, Barrett v. Rosenthal doesn't even hold as
precedent, though I believe the legal argument makes sense.  Don't
take my word for it, though.  Read it yourself, or at least read the
Wikipedia article about it.

I also suspect Congress is going to have to act if this precedent
holds.  Something like the DMCA for libel, with takedown notices and
such, would probably make a lot more sense.