Privacy Digest

News that can impact your privacy.
Login/Register
What is OpenID?
  • Log in using OpenID
  • Cancel OpenID login
  • Create new account
  • Request new password
Home Blogs MacRonin's blog
    • FAQ
    • Wishlists
    • Contact
    • Categories/RSS

Bookmark Us

Bookmark Privacy Digest 
Bookmark This Page 

Syndicate

Syndicate content
more

Advertisements

Tracking System
Tracking System
Private Detectives
Quality Security Services in California
Fleet Management
Hosting

Popular content

Last viewed:

  • Internet Security Threat Report - Symantec Corp.
  • Opinion: Dear Facebook, it's time to act like a grown-up about security
  • Report: Russian gang linked to big Citibank hack
  • The Control Revolution: Technological and Economic Origins of the Information Society
  • Oversight on New FBI Tools - Investigation Oversight/ C-SPAN Video Library
  • Citi issuing new credit cards on inactive Macy's accounts
  • reCAPTCHA: Stop Spam, Read Books

tags in Topics

Activists Alert Anonymity 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 Spin Zone Surveillance Telecommunications Tracking
more tags

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:
  • Twitter Twitter
  • Digg Digg
  • StumbleUpon StumbleUpon
  • Technorati Technorati
  • del.icio.us del.icio.us
  • Facebook Facebook
  • Furl Furl
  • LinkedIn LinkedIn
  • Yahoo Yahoo
  • MacRonin's blog
  • Add new comment

Recent blog posts

  • In Bid to Sway Sales, Cameras Track Shoppers
  • Unprecedented 25-Year Sentence Sought for TJX Hacker
  • EFF Appeals Dismissal of Warrantless Wiretapping Case
  • Viacom Makes Its Case Against Yesterday's YouTube
  • Obama supports Senators draft plan to rework U.S. immigration policy - Includes National Biometric ID card for all.
  • Domain Names Can't Defend Themselves
  • Hacker Disables More Than 100 Cars Remotely
  • Judges Approves $9.5 Million Facebook ‘Beacon’ Accord
  • Hooking Up The Big Brother Machine... And Fighting It
  • Court: State Can Dump Non-Sex Offenders Into Registry
more

Performancing Metrics

Compilation © Copyright 1997-2010 Paul Hardwick, with Web Hosting provided by MacRonin.com.