[WikiEN-l] Re: WHEELER's anti-Semitism

[Sheldon Rampton]

Michael Snow wrote:

>The law in some states, notably California, protects a certain amount of
>free speech on some private property, specifically the ability to
>petition or solicit individuals in shopping centers that are open to the
>general public. Maybe this is what gave Chris the idea that Wikipedia is
>a public forum. But even if this principle applied to speech on
>Wikipedia, I highly doubt it would cover anything resembling hate-speech.

This brings up a question that I'd like answered: Given that 
Wikipedia is *not* a public forum, can it or its owner be sued for 
libel?

What happens, for example, if an anonymous user with a determined 
attitude insists on posting something claiming that Michael Moore is 
a pedophile? Since the anonymous user's identity can't be traced, 
Moore's only recourse would be to sue the MediaWiki foundation. And 
even if the user is banned, he could come back forever and keep 
posting the claim on different articles under different sock-puppet 
IDs.

Doesn't this put Wikipedia in the difficult position of being legally 
responsible for behavior that it doesn't have the power to control?
-- 
--------------------------------
|  Sheldon Rampton
|  Research director, Center for Media & Democracy (www.prwatch.org)
|  Author of books including:
|     Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities
|     Toxic Sludge Is Good For You
|     Mad Cow USA
|     Trust Us, We're Experts
|     Weapons of Mass Deception
|     Banana Republicans
--------------------------------