On 4/22/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
Also, the phrasing "no longer publishing
it" implies that Wikimedia at
one time *did* publish it. But that's most likely not true.
I factually disagree with that. If the material was there for even a
few minutes it was published by Wikimedia, but that alone does not
determine the case. What happened when Wikimedia became aware that the
material was there is far more important.
Ec
You have a right to your opinion. But I think it's hard to justify
that position with the CDA:
"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be
treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by
another information content provider."
Note that I'm not saying the CDA can necessarily be used as a defense
by Wikitruth. Going back to your quote: "It would probably depend on
whether Wikimedia could simultaneously argue that (a) deleting
material -- where admins could still access it -- qualified as no
longer publishing it and (b) Wikimedia is not responsible for the
actions of admins who obtain that material." I would say the argument
is a) they aren't a publisher, but merely provide an interactive
computer service.
The Prodigy case is irrelevant, because the CDA was passed after that
case. In fact, section 230 of the CDA was created in large part as a
response to the Prodigy case. See [[Section 230 of the Communications
Decency Act]].
Anthony