[Foundation-l] Minors and sexual explicit stuff

[effe iets anders]

There are two possible discussions:

1) a discussion about the legal requirements - please leave this to
the legal experts. I'm confident that Mike Godwin keeps an eye onto
it, and if he doesn't you could solicit the advice of a legal expert,
and bring that advice to him or the WMF ED/board.
2) a discussion on whether we want to make Wikimedia better accessible
to people having significant problems with a category of content. -
that discussion be held here, if the necessary data is found (as laid
out in a previous email).

best, eia

2009/11/18 Delirium <delirium op hackish.org>:
> George Herbert wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 9:27 PM, Anthony <wikimail op inbox.org> wrote:
>>
>>> So state it as much as you want.  The WMF is a publisher.  Under
>>> Section 230 of the CDA it most likely won't be treated as a publisher,
>>> but that doesn't mean it isn't a publisher.
>>>
>>
>> The section 230 that would seem to matter here?
>>
>> The WMF has all sorts of roles, depending on who you are, how you look
>> at it, and what your perspective is (and what day of the month it is,
>> etc).  Referring to legal issues, one has to remain domain specific
>> when using specific terms in a legal sense.
>>
>
> It's also quite unsettled what Section 230 protections consist of to
> begin with. Some U.S. courts have applied them *extremely* broadly. One
> still-current Circuit Court precedent, which is binding in the distrct
> Wikimedia servers are located, is _Batzel v. Smith_ (9th Circuit, 2003),
> which holds that a blogger who reposts material emailed to him, even
> though he chooses which emails to republish, is entitled to Section 230
> protection by virtue of the mere fact that the material he publishes
> originates ultimately with his "users", and is not something he
> personally authored. It's hard to imagine any Wikimedia Foundation
> activity w.r.t. Wikipedia that doesn't meet at least the _Batzel_
> standard, apart from Wikimedia Foundation employees literally inserting
> original content into Wikipedia articles while on the clock. If the
> ultimate source of the content is elsewhere, regardless of what
> editorial or publishing decisions are made in the middle, it's
> Section-230-protected under _Batzel_. Of course, _Batzel_ might be wrong
> and overturned in the future, which is the risk of relying too much on
> law in this as-yet-unsettled area...
>
> -Mark
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l op lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>