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

[Anthony]

On Dec 4, 2007 4:32 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> 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.

I'd say it's a hell of a law, more than a hell of an interpretation.
The Supreme Court of California even admitted that the law has
"disturbing implications", after ruling on its 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.
>
I'm not sure what your view of "us" is that you think is excluded from
potentially being subject to the latter.  Unlike nuclear weapons I
don't think mutually assured destruction will work for libel law.