[Foundation-l] Controversial content software status

[Ray Saintonge]

On 03/08/12 2:20 AM, Theo10011 wrote:
> The other issue is morality and responsibility. I don't think any
> executives or board members should make a statement about that video. It's
> a stated policy that they are not responsible for the content on the
> project. To hold them legally or morally responsible, for what 100,000
> contributors might do at any given point, is unrealistic and unreasonable.
> They can not be held liable for actions of vandals, as much as of community
> members who upload media in good faith. Depending on how you perceive this,
> who does have some responsibility is the community itself. It governs
> itself, has its own rules about content, WMF regularly points to it in
> cases of content dispute.
>
>
This raises an important point about the role of the board, and of 
staff.  The status of an ISP implies blindness to content.  The more it 
assumes editorial rights, the more it puts its role as an ISP into 
question.  It does not know about these contents until it receives a 
properly formulated demand to take something down, at which point it 
must act according to law.  Third parties who just happen to feel 
offended by some material tend to approach these matters with a strong 
bias, which may or may not reflect the reality of the law. Such people 
need to be informed of the proper legal channels with the assurance of 
knowing that management will abide with the law without itself being a 
tryer of the facts.

Ray