Privacy Digest

News that can impact your privacy.
Login/Register
  • Create new account
  • Request new password
Home Blogs MacRonin's blog
  • FAQ
  • Wishlists
  • Contact
  • Categories/RSS

Bookmark Us

Bookmark Privacy Digest 
Bookmark This Page 

RSS Feed + Site Map

Syndicate content
more

Advertisements

GPS Tracking
Search By Phone Number
Hosting
Home Security Systems Toronto
Mercedes-Benz Luxury Cars News
Disk Encryption
spy camera

Popular content

Last viewed:

  • Google Says Microsoft Has More User Information
  • Rogue Anti-Spyware
  • New York Hack Hacked
  • Several Facts about Google and HTTPS
  • UC Berkeley Suffers Breach of Student Health Data
  • Mayor Defends Spying by Police Before G.O.P. Convention - New York Times
  • International Federation of the Phonographic Industry(IFPI) Site Hacked to Protest Pirate Bay Trial

tags in Topics

Activists Alert Companies Congress Copyright Court (US) Databases Data Mining Editorial EFF Entertainment Exploits Fourth Amendment Government Hmmm ID Infrastructure Law Enforcement Laws Politics Privacy Remember Reports Rights Security Software Spin Zone Surveillance Telecommunications Tracking
more tags

Performancing Metrics Blog Statistics
EatonWeb Blog Directory
Listed on BlogShares
View blog authority
Congressional Research
Broadcast Flag

EFF and Sheppard Mullin Defend Wikipedia in Defamation Case

Submitted by MacRonin on May 2, 2008 - 6:50pm.
  • Activists
  • Court (US)
  • Editorial
  • EFF
  • First Amendment
  • Hmmm
  • Laws
  • Rights
  • Spin Zone

EFF and Sheppard Mullin Defend Wikipedia in Defamation Case - Via EFF: Breaking News:

San Francisco - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the law firm of Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton Thursday filed a motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought against the operator of the popular online encyclopedia Wikipedia, arguing that federal law immunizes it against suits over statements made by its users.

Literary agent Barbara Bauer filed a complaint in New Jersey Superior Court in January against Wikipedia posters as well as the site itself, claiming in part that the Wikimedia Foundation was liable for statements identifying her as one the "dumbest of the twenty worst" agents and that she had "no documented sales at all." In court papers filed Thursday, Wikimedia argues that under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, operators of "interactive computer services" such as Wikipedia cannot be held liable for users' comments. In addition, Wikimedia argues that the statements are protected speech under the First Amendment and New Jersey law.

The ability to utilize the collaborative input of its users without fear of costly lawsuits is essential to Wikipedia's ongoing success, said Wikimedia Foundation General Counsel Mike Godwin.

"We provide a platform through Wikipedia for smart citizens to give their knowledge back to a larger culture," Godwin said. "Our ability to offer citizens that platform is what's at stake in this case."

Since it was signed into law over a decade ago, courts across the country have consistently applied the protections of Section 230 broadly, fulfilling Congress' intent "to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation."

"Congress passed Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in order to protect websites' operators like Wikipedia from suits like this one," said James Chadwick of Sheppard Mullin. "It's simple but it's fundamental: Congress has decided that Internet censorship isn't the answer, so websites aren't liable for statements posted by their users."

Section 230's blanket protection of sites like Wikipedia does not mean that alleged defamation on the Internet cannot be challenged in court. Instead, the law requires that litigants direct their efforts at the speakers themselves and not the forums where statements were made.

"Wikipedia continues to be a tremendous resource for people around the globe," added EFF Senior Staff Attorney Matt Zimmerman. "Without strong liability protection, it would be difficult for Wikipedia to continue to provide a platform for user-created encyclopedia content."

For the full motion to dismiss: http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/wikimedia/motiontoquashmemo-wikimedia....

Contacts:

Matt Zimmerman
Senior Staff Attorney
Electronic Frontier Foundation
mattz@eff.org

Mike Godwin
General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
mgodwin@wikimedia.org

James Chadwick
Partner
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
jchadwick@sheppardmullin.com

(Read Original Article - Via EFF: Breaking News.)


Bookmark/Search this post with:
  • Delicious Delicious
  • Digg Digg
  • Reddit Reddit
  • Google Google
  • Yahoo Yahoo
  • Technorati Technorati
  • MacRonin's blog
  • Add new comment

Recent blog posts

  • A Remedy for Every Wrong? Why We Need a Consistent Privacy Act
  • Give Me My Health Data!
  • CDT, EFF and PK File Brief in Ringtones Case
  • Pirate Bay 2.0: Pay Pirates to Become Consumers
  • Judge Acquits Lori Drew in Cyberbullying Case, Overrules Jury
  • Apple patching serious SMS vulnerability on iPhone
  • Enter the Advertisers - self-regulatory principles ?
  • Out of business, Clear may sell customer data
  • TSA asked to ensure safety of customer data after Clear closing
  • Several Facts about Google and HTTPS
more
Compilation © Copyright 1997-2009 Paul Hardwick, with Web Hosting provided by MacRonin.com.