[WikiEN-l] BADSITES ArbCom case in progress

[Armed Blowfish]

On 20/09/2007, William Pietri <william at scissor.com> wrote:
> In that case, we agree completely about the relevance of
> non-US law. The letter is irrelevant, but the spirit can be worth
> learning from.

Someone brought up 'the good of the project', and the project
could be sued in the United Kingdom if it fails to adhere to their
defamation law.

Ethically, of course, you are right - the United Kingdom does not
define morality, though they may make good moral arguments.
E.g. that pointing at an attack or whatever extends it, failure to
remove something upon request means you are no longer an
innocent disseminater, etc.

> Where we disagree is whether content can be malicious on its
> own. You and I agree that we should stop *people* from being
> malicious on-wiki.  But I think we should allow people acting in
> good faith and with good purpose to discuss things that malicious
> people have said.
>
> William

Who says attacks are made maliciously?

One person's attack is another person's fight for justice (or
something perceived as good).

A lot of the attackers have been attacked too....