On 4/20/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 4/20/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
Failure to do so is actionable if the content is illegal, assuming that the Board is made aware of the situation.
It would not be wise to discuss legal strategy in public. That said, I think the idea that Brandt's article is "illegal" is preposterous.
The fact is that his could be the opposite strategy - by threatening the foundation in to making a decision here, they would acknowledge that they are the final decision maker and thus bring additional problems. The decision makers on what content to keep should remain a community decision with libelous content, etc quickly removed by the community. The foundation is only a provider of services and is not responsible for the content that is put on those services, and to exercise any other power because they own the servers would put their status as a service provider in jeapordy.
In other words - it looks like Brandt's strategy is to use legal threats to get the board to do some action that will undermine their very solid legal position.
Jim (Trodel)