[Foundation-l] Legal requirements for sexual content -- help, please!

[wiki-list at phizz.demon.co.uk]

wjhonson at aol.com wrote:
>  The foundation does not "own and operate" the site in the way that Fox news owns and operates their site.
> The foundation merely ensures that the site operates, functions, runs.
> It does not edit the contents of the site.  That is the fundamental flaw in this argument.
> I really doubt that we are "promoting" the Foundation.  I think we are "promoting" (if anything) the contents of the site, which contents are created, edited, loaded by the community.  It is the uploader who is responsible for any legal issue regarding what they have uploaded.  Not the foundation.
> 
> That is how the Wikimedia sites differ from a typical site.
> In the same way, Facebook is not legally responsible for some member uploaded nude pictures of their ex-boyfriend to their page.
> The user doing the uploading is responsible.
> 

Across the world the "Nobody is home" argument is quickly running out of 
steam. Google execs sentenced to 6 months in Italy, LimeWire guilty for 
its user's piracy, and blog owner found liable for user submitted libel.


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/26/google_italy_trial
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/18/limewire_copyright_ruling
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/08/user_comments_ruling


the days of the internet being a free for all are coming to an end. If 
websites won't take responsibility, at least to the extent of having a 
policies in place which are enforced, then others will make it for them, 
  by disabling access to the site.