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

[Brian McNeil]

Thomas Dalton wrote:

>> 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.

If the comments are not subject to editorial control and not in print, you
might as well be talking about Slashdot.


Brian McNeil