[Foundation-l] Interesting legal action

Seth Finkelstein sethf at sethf.com
Fri May 20 22:47:23 UTC 2011

[Posting wearing my battered free-speech (ex)activist hat, not
the Wikipedia-critic hat]

1) Stand-down a little - apparently Twitter is only being asked to
produce identity information, same as the Wikimedia Foundation has
been in other cases (under court order).


"Lawyers at Schillings who represent CTB have issued a statement
clarifying the action it has taken.

It said it was not suing Twitter but had made an application "to
obtain limited information concerning the unlawful use of Twitter by a
small number of individuals who may have breached a court order"."

That is, this isn't a provider liability case.

2) Regarding "Our BLP policy has worked.", that's a fascinating
argument that the super-injunction *is* worthwhile. If Wikipedia
defines verifiability in terms of major media sources, and the
super-injunction inhibits those sources, then it effectively
inhibits Wikipedia (even if it's impolitic to put it that way).
I actually believe that the accumulated sourcing now *should* satisfy
Wikipedia's verification requirements in the case of the footballer,
and was tempted to make that argument. But given I have a nontrivial
connection to UK jurisdiction, plus I'm sure I'd get a huge amount
of personal attack due to the various politics, it wasn't worth it. 
Just observing, on various talk pages, I believe the WP:NOTCENSORED 
faction has made its sourcing argument poorly. Maybe there's another
lesson there as to relative costs imposed.

Seth Finkelstein  Consulting Programmer  http://sethf.com
Infothought blog - http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/
Interview: http://sethf.com/essays/major/greplaw-interview.php

More information about the foundation-l mailing list