On 4/22/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/22/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
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]].
Well, almost. The common law elements of the Prodigy case stand if the elements of the statutory exemption of CDA 230 are not satisfied. It is *probably* the case that Wikipedia can *sometimes* satisfy CDA 230, but not always. If someone is trusted with access to sensitive information in order to facilitate the smooth running of Wikipedia and then proceeds to publish that information, then a plaintiff, having notified Wikipedia of defamation and then seen the defamation published via a leak by a Wikipedia administrator to WikiTruth *might* argue that Wikipedia did not take all reasonable steps to limit damage, and a court might accept this as a prima facie case for third party liability.
Frankly, I just don't see it, but maybe I don't know what you mean by "sensitive information". You also don't mention what Wikipedia would be sued for. Negligence? If so, I don't see where the duty of care is.
This is hypothetical, but I think it demonstrates that Wikitruth, if its purported evidence of Wikipedia admin collusion is correct, represents a fairly serious problem for Wikipedia.
I'm not willing to say that there isn't a serious problem. In fact, if Wikitruth is publishing information which violates someone's right to privacy, *that* might be a problem. But in my opinion anything that violates someone's right to privacy shouldn't be available to admins in the first place.
Anthony