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

[Thomas Dalton]

> Again, in the US, that argument has explicitly been brought up and
> rejected.  The whole point of Section 230 was to *encourage*
> self-policing and filtering.  If services which filtered content were
> held to a higher standard, that would *discourage* self-policing and
> filtering using the very argument you are now making.

That would suggest that, say, The New York Times would not be liable
for libel in any article on their website submitted electronically by
a member of the public. That's a hell of an interpretation. If it's
correct, then it's excellent for us. Not so great for anyone libelled
about by an anonymous contributor using a public computer whose
reputation is ruined by people trusting the reputability of The New
York Times.