[Foundation-l] Fwd: [WL-News] Wikimedia Foundation in danger of losing immunity under the Communications Decency Act

[Dan Rosenthal]

The issue in short form (without taking any sides on it) is that your  
student newspaper, if it writes something illegal, is liable as an  
organization. Wikimedia, however, is protected under the CDA as long  
as it acts as a provider, and not an editor. Wikileaks is implying  
that by pulling the story they are acting as an editor. Mike Godwin is  
saying otherwise. So, that's why this is controversial: because the  
issue at hand is involving the potential liability of the foundation.

-Dan
On May 18, 2008, at 1:23 PM, Geoffrey Plourde wrote:

> I fail to see why this is so controversial. I serve as an editor for  
> a student paper. If the administration sees legal issues with  
> something, it is their prerogative to request removal or rewriting  
> of stories. The publisher of any major news publication has the same  
> power. Without this power, the newspaper would be shut down due to  
> lawsuits.
> Although some people here scream censorship, I would like to thank  
> everyone who worked on removing the libel from our site for their  
> vigilance which keeps the doors open and the servers on.
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Ryan <wiki.ral315 at gmail.com>
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org 
> >
> Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2008 8:13:31 AM
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: [WL-News] Wikimedia Foundation in  
> danger of losing immunity under the Communications Decency Act
>
> On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 10:22 AM, Todd Allen <toddmallen at gmail.com>  
> wrote:
>
>> I think we all may be missing the point here, however. Regardless of
>> the legalities, what possible business could WMF have in keeping
>> Wikinews from publishing stories that are critical of WMF? Is this  
>> not
>> about as clear a conflict of interest as you get?
>>
>> Personally, I don't agree that Virgin Killer is child porn (or porn  
>> at
>> all, I see nothing sexual at all about the image), but the fact  
>> that I
>> disagree with the story makes me no less disturbed to see it getting
>> quashed. I'm glad for Wikileaks, this type of thing is totally
>> unacceptable, and I'm doubly disappointed to see it from WMF.  
>> (Doesn't
>> Wikinews have some type of "not censored" policy? Does that only  
>> apply
>> if they don't dare criticize Wikimedia?)
>>
>
> I've seen the deleted article.  I don't feel comfortable discussing
> specifics, but there's no doubt in my mind that it was libelous (and  
> on a
> purely personal note, it was a horribly written article).  I would  
> hope that
> administrators, and by extension, perhaps the Foundation, would act to
> remove any articles that looked like that.
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation has not censored Wikinews on previous  
> stories that
> criticized them (the Marsden affair, for example).  When I first  
> heard about
> this, I was shocked; after reading the article itself, I realized  
> why it was
> deleted (and would have deleted it myself, honestly).
>
> -- 
> [[User:Ral315]]
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l